Wikipedia talk:USEP/Courses/JHU MolBio Ogg 2012/Section 83/Group 83D

Hi Group D. Do you want to each pick two articles to briefly assess up front so we don't accidentally all do the same two? Then we can post the assessments on our page and make a decision. What do you think? Katesee (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessments added
Hi, I added my two assessments. I'm fine with picking something we can really add a lot too so it has more of an impact. Our summary is due Tuesday so maybe we can pick something by Sunday? Katesee (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kate, please put your assessments here on the talk page. The group project page is for finished assignments, in particular, after you pick one article:
 * Write this summary as a new section on your group's Wikipedia page, under the heading "Unit 6 article selection rationale."
 * Thanks! Klortho (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am going to do Trans Acting siRNA and DNAX for my two assessments. They both look very undeveloped and would be good candidates for something that we can really add a lot to. I will post the assessments later today and I completely agree with choosing by Sunday.
 * Out of curiosity, are there topics which relate to any work you guys are currently doing and researching them would benefit you both at your job and in class? I think choosing something like that, or at least a topic that interests us in addition to needing a lot of work would be the way to go. JGLehman3 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be a great idea, John. For me personally, none of the topics would help with my work though. To narrow down our selection just based on potential, I think the best would be small nucleolar RNA U3, trans-acting siRNA, or segment polarity gene. Do either of you have a preference from these or have a different one in mind? Lamcmaho (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * After looking at the pages i think that trans-acting siRNA and polarity gene need the most improvement. Small nucleolar RNA U3 while still being only a stub does have more information, citations, sections ect. So, I would lean more towards trans-acting siRNA or segment polarity gene, but between them i don't have much of a preference.  I have done work with using siRNA to knockdown gene expression, but am by no means an expert on siRNA and before reading the article had never heard of trans-acting siRNA.  Segment polarity gene is also a new term for me, so if either of you have a stronger preference, then i am on board with the decision. JGLehman3 (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input! I think we should go with trans-acting siRNA then. I can claim it on the class site now so we can get started on the rationale. I saw that Chris told group C that they could put the rationale draft on the projects page so the whole group can edit it, so I'll start a section there with the assessment you wrote up, and we can expand it to the 300-400 words required. Lamcmaho (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating the assessment section, this looks like a good one Katesee (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to expand the summary a little, feel free to remove anything you don't likeKatesee (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm about to dive into working a bit on our summary. I just wanted to give you guys a heads up on my plans.  Since it is a summary explaining the rationale for our choice i was thinking of creating an intro section which discusses our desire to have a pretty raw article that we could make major improvements on, and the thought of choosing something that we can relate to since siRNA is something that i have experience with in my lab.  That should help provide a bit more meat to our summary and really outline the reasons for choosing trans-acting siRNA. JGLehman3 (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I made the changes i mentioned above. It should meet the required length now.  Like always make any changes you feel necessary.  I put my name in just because it was easier, but if you think it would be better to say one of our group members... ect. that works for me.  Also if either of you have an interest in the topic or any experience i think we should mention that as well. I don't want it to come across as the topic was chosen just because i liked it because you both played pivotal roles in choosing the topic as well. JGLehman3 (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Made some more edits today, mainly just revising what i wrote yesterday. I didn't like having my name written in, so i took it out in favor of the more group oriented "one of our group members".  Feel free to make any edits you feel necessary, i probably will not be back on again before the final draft is due. JGLehman3 (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Kate's Assessments
Small nucleolar RNA U3

This page is designated a stub article and only has very basic information. It is a low priority article and the last activity on the talk page is from 2009. The writing could flow better and once more information is added it should be broken into sections per the MCB style guide. I think the first paragraph could stand by itself and the rest of the info could be placed into a structure section. The article does have references and some good external links. It is very broad, neutral, and stable. The last edit was made in 2011 and there is only one small image. More background information would be helpful to add such as discovery, U content, and gene structure.

Pyrimidine

This article is well written and nicely formatted. It is designated a start-class article and rated high importance. In March of this year there was activity on the talk page about the numbering of atoms and the most recent edit was made in July. There are several images relevant to the topic and they are appropriately tagged. All of the basic information and references are already in place. It would be more difficult to add to this article than an article that is at a less advanced state. We could add some history or sources. The purine page has some good info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katesee (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

John's Assessments
Trans-Acting siRNA

The Article is designated as a stub and has no associated talk page. It was last modified in December of 2011 and has had a handful of editors. It is all of three sentences long and briefly states that it is a type of siRNA and how it differs from typical siRNAs. There is no real in-depth content about its mechanism, and it could definitely use some images to better elucidate how its mechanism differs from that of typical siRNAs. I also think it would benefit from a paragraph on its discovery. I personally like the potential of this article. It is very incomplete and needs a good bit of work, but I was also able to easily find information on it when briefly browsing the internet.

DNA X

This Article is also designated as a stub with no associated talk page. It contains even less information than the Trans-Acting siRNA article. It states what the DnaX gene encodes for in prokaryotes and eukaryotes, but that is all. Unlike the Trans-Acting siRNA article, DNA X has links to pages which do not exist and does not have references listed. It has only been edited by two users and was last edited in January of 2010. I feel like there is a lot of room for improvement with this topic, and many directions we could expand in, but haven’t been able to find easily available information with a short browse of the internet. If we can find the information, this article would definitely be a good one to choose to improve upon. JGLehman3 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies about assessments / talk page mixup!
Hi, I want to apologize for making a little bit of extra work for you guys. I realized just today that I gave you bad advice when I asked you, above, to move your assessments from your project page to your talk page here. The note right on the group page itself says to use that page for assessments, and I had forgotten that. In this particular area, the line between discussion (which belongs on a talk page) and finished product that is the result of group effort (which belongs on the group page) is a little bit blurry. So, in fact, it doesn't really matter where you put them. I'll work with Dr. Ogg to make sure that no matter where they are, we will find them. Klortho (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Lauren's Assessments
DnaH

Like dnaX, this page is a stub with very little information. There is only one sentence with one reference, and the last edit was in January 2010. As in the case of dnaX, a search did not result in a large amount of easily available information on dnaH. The most useful sources appear to be from 1974-1976, so it does not seem to be an actively studied gene.

Segment polarity gene

This stub has four sentences that give a brief overview, but it could easily have a lot more information along with some pictures. It has one reference and several links to other pages, but one of the linked pages does not exist. It was last edited last month, but the only changes were italics and two links, and the last edits before that were in February 2011. The segment polarity gene has been extensively studied, so there is a large amount of information available for research and addition to the stub. The importance of the gene in development and the results of mutations could be greatly expanded. Lamcmaho (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

To Do List
Hi, I thought we could start making a list of what we want to add. From the assessment I pulled out the following, anything else you want to shoot for?

Mechanism

Images

Discovery

Biosynthesis

Examples of plants in which this is found

Katesee (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind I'm going to claim land plants since it was my suggestion. Katesee (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for compiling the list! It looks like a great place to start. I can take mechanism and images. Lamcmaho (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'll do some of biosynthesis too, looks like that information is in the same papers as plant examples.Katesee (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool I'll look up whats left and see if i can find anything else worth adding. JGLehman3 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Progress
Hi, I started practicing my sections in my sandbox. I hope you can see it. I still have to properly add the refs (need to be at home to use the tool), but what do you think so far? I found a figure for the biosynthesis but I'm not sure yet how to add images, if one of you knows how please point me in the right direction. Thanks! Katesee (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I started a draft of the progress report. When should we start making updates to the article? I wasn't sure if we should add the headings for the sections we are going to add or wait until we have all of the info together and make one big reformatting update. I think that decision is something we can add to the progress report. Katesee (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting that progress report Kate! Sorry i haven't been very present on here lately, but i have found some articles and am currently going through them to find new and useful information to aid in editing our article. I'll post more information on that and add to/edit the progress report tonight.  I am more of the opinion that we should compile the information and then reformat when we have a more polished update to the article.  Knowing what information we have and discussing how to best format it will make sure we are all on the same page.  I think it might be a good idea for all of us to set up a rough draft of information including the sources in our sandbox like what Kate has.  Then we can take that information and decide how to best format it in the article before posting.  I also think setting a deadline for writing this rough draft in the sandbox would be extremely helpful so that it doesn't get pushed aside by the rest of our busy schedules.  How does that sound? JGLehman3 (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kate! I will be able to add my information to my sandbox tonight and expand the progress report as well, John. I know it would be a quick turnaround, but maybe if we update our sandboxes as planned tonight, we can do a preliminary update on the article tomorrow? That way we can possibly start to get feedback from other editors as mentioned in the unit 9 suggestions, and our classmates will be more easily able to start peer-reviewing in unit 10. Just an idea! If that would be too fast, we could continue our sandboxes for another few days perhaps so we can aim to get an article update in unit 10. Lamcmaho (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No that's fine i was planning on getting my stuff together tonight, i just didn't want to rush you incase you needed some more time. JGLehman3 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I put some of my stuff so far in my sandbox. Going to add two the draft of the progress report now. JGLehman3 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did some editing and added information pertaining to what i have done. Just so you know word count is at about 350 so we need to make it a bit longer as well as making it sound more cohesive.  I think after tonight when we all have our rough drafts up and can see all the compiled information things will come together and it will be easier to edit the update.  JGLehman3 (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My dad was admitted to the hospital last night, so I haven't been able to update yet in between visits, but I will soon. Lamcmaho (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that and I hope everything turns out well. Don't stress out about getting your update in, family is more important than grades.  JGLehman3 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, things have been improving throughout the day. I set up a work station in the room, so I'll be able to contribute more for the rest of the night. Lamcmaho (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lauren, I think your edits and additions to the update on the project page are great. I read through it and i think it sums everything up very well.  I couldn't find anything I felt needed to be changed so great job! Glad to hear things are improving with your father.  My thoughts and prayers are with you! JGLehman3 (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are with you too Lauren. Sorry I missed this conversation. I got no notifications after the 5th. They seem to be really spotty for me no matter what I do. I'll be going home for Thanksgiving this Saturday but should be able to check in at least a few times next week if we decide to make updates.Katesee (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I went and put our outline of updates on the article talk page, I hope you are ok with that. Do you think we should put up what we have now and see what comments we get while we continue to beef up our sections? Katesee (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes! You should have done this already. Please put what you have now into the article; it will give your reviewers and outside editors a chance to give you feedback -- time is getting very short. It's also very much preferable that you start to draft and work on the article in-place, rather than continuing to work on your sections offline somewhere. Klortho (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, I'm in group 83E, we're your peer reviewers. I see you guys have started working on the article, will you be posting a draft soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skhan58 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of sections up already if you want to start with those. They are biosynthesis and presence in land plants. Katesee (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tip of the day: after I used the od template above (which stands for "outdent"), it "resets" the indentation, so you can start back at the left margin.  So the colons don't get out of hand.  Klortho (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Peer Review from Group 83E
Hey group I'm from group 83E, and just wanted to leave my peer review of all the work that you have accomplished already. Based on what I have reviewed from your article page and that of your talk page; I can see that the additions that were made to the article page already are great. I have a few additions for you to consider, which I'm sure you are already working on. The discovery and biosynthesis information for Trans-acting siRNA is great. I can see that the mechanism portion is a work in progress. The amount of references that you have based on the information you have provided I believe is good. Im sure as additional information is added more references will be added also. One thing I have noticed is that there are no visual images or figures to look at; that is one thing you may want to consider in your article page. Secondly, any additional information of how trans-acting siRNA works and how it is important. Has the discovery of trans-acting siRNA lead to any new scientific discoveries? I found a website on trans-acting siRNA from a UCSF site that may help, or at least all the references that are on the bottom of the page maybe helpful. http://mcmanuslab.ucsf.edu/node/271 Makselrod (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Activities
I think we should post a peer review to the DNA polymerase group soon and maybe note that in our progress report. I like their intentions and what they've done so far. I'm thinking they might include discovery in their proposed history section but we could ask in our peer review and suggest that. What are your thoughts? Katesee (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted a review last week on their Group talk page. I pretty much said i liked their direction and the amount of work they had done, but advised them to add more references since when i read it there were very few for the amount of content.  I think each person can give their own review/opinion.  It might be more helpful to have 3 different perspectives. JGLehman3 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Final Project Report
Great start Kate with the Final Progress Report. I just wanted to let you and Lauren know that I am busy until Friday, so I won't make my final edits until then. JGLehman3 (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)