Talk:Group 6 Project - Confocal Microscopy
--Mark Hill 00:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC) The Project Page now locked, the discussion page is still available for additions and edits.
Table complete =) it's looking good guys! --Erika Unsworth 06:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
So i found some pretty awesome pictures that are all allowed to be reproduced. BOO YA! im done here--Justin Friedman 13:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Couple of things:
- Introduction is done.
- i also fixed up some of the references
- added some glossary terms for mike's section that need filling in
- mike will be doing TIRF
- mike will be fixing up his section (timeline & development)
- erika, you can do the table thing for your section (pros and cons) and add that disease picture as we discussed.
- i still need to add some pics and fix my references
GO TEAM! --Justin Friedman 04:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, So from the suggestions I think this is what needs to be done.
- Change the format of the history, so it is a timeline and move it further up the page.
- Add an introduction section, maybe just 50 words or even less.
- Need to get heaps more pictures, maybe one of an actual confocal microscope, if we can find it.
- Also, as Mark Hill said there was no mention of TIRF, I think it would be prudent to add something about that in as well.
I am happy to keep the glossary as is, although it does seem very long and we got commented on that, we did get some positive comments about the way it was done. I think it is something different and unique about our project and should be conserved. Feel free to tell me just how wrong I am.--Michael Beecheno 06:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
--Ozgur Tuna 05:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Great work Guys!!! The first thing that hit me was the Student Drawn Diagram!!! Also well presented information and references about Connfocal Microscopy.
- The Glossary in Content section grew tooooo long.
- Introduction is missing.
- Timeline can be reorganized to show the significant developments in a more clear way, maybe by using bullet points.
--Shoahaib Karimi 04:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Great use of the glossary and the amount referenced is a lot but thats good, you use great language to explain a difficult topic. But remove how its presented in the contents section it looks too much just for a glossary. Add some more pictures into the introduction and history. make your future development more detailed.
--Mari Fushimi 04:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hey group 6-here is my feedback:
- Great effort
- Introduction-It would help to have one for the page
- Layout-student diagram was awesome; history-could use a timeline as it was set up in a very wordy manner that made me not want to read it; I liked the use of point form for the rest of the text; glossary-a little daunting but clear!
- References are thorough
--Mark Hill 04:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Lab 8 Assessment - 23 student reviews.
--Jessie Tomkins 03:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 6. A few things to think about:
- Putting in an introduction to give an overall view of what the page is about.
- Moving the Timeline to after the introduction and putting the timeline into dot points. It was a bit confusing how you have it now.
- I really liked the pictures that are in the first half of the page but there seems to be a lack of visual stimulus in the second half of the page.
- I liked your evaulation section though you could put this in a table format so it is easily compared?
- I think some of your paragraphs were perhaps lacking in content. Maybe a little more research is needed?
- I love the content of your glossary, it is very well done. I don't like them as seperate headings however.
A good project guys, just needs a few tweeks here and there.
--z3252833 03:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hey there! Your images (which look amazing, by the way, great job if they’re student-drawn) say computer-drawn – does that mean student drawn? If it does, you might want to clarify that a little (and if not then where is your student diagram?), though the rest of your picture citations seem pretty good. I very much like that you have a link to a movie of tubulin in a mitotic cell – having a movie kept my attention on the page rather than wandering. Is there any way you could put a screenshot of the movie in with the hyperlink, like on Group 10’s page, just to make the link more obvious? I guess the first thing I noticed when I got to your page was there was no introduction. It just went straight into the basic mechanism. It might be worth putting something introductory together, even if it is only a sentence or two, just to ease your readers into the subject instead of dropping them straight in with no warning. Perhaps as well you could place the timeline and development before the explanation of the mechanism; just to aid the flow of the page. It also might just be worth thinking about whether or not you can reduce some of the dense paragraph nature of the timeline and development and present it in dot points, or a table, or even pictorially on an actual timeline, just to break up the text a bit. One thing I really noticed from a layout point of view was your glossary. Factually I can’t fault it; you go through all the terms really well. But in terms of formatting, it takes up an awful lot of space and seems excessively spread out. Also, because the terms are used as headings, the contents list at the top is huge and you have to scroll down a way to start reading – it possibly doesn’t make the best first impression. So, if I may, I suggest condensing your glossary and using just bolded text instead of headings for the terms. Finally, your evaluation is both informative and well done, as well as being well placed, summing everything up at the end. It’s entirely up to you, but you might want to think about putting some of it in a table just to break up the text. Nicely done.
--Paula Ordonez 03:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hey guys! what a very lovely page! love the linking of the words to the glossary idea. The amazingly drawn diagram makes the mechanism of confocal microscopy very easy to understand as well as alot of the phrasing in the text. Furthermore, the application and evaluation was very effective in making use of bullet points to provide a clear and succinct summary. A few suggestions I have include adding a bit of an introduction and moving the timeline and development to early on in the page, maybe breaking up large paragraphs with pictures or condensing them into bullet points or tables. Overall, definitely an outstanding page.
--Samantha Cabrera 02:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I think it would be better presented when the glossary terms are not headings. I too would say the timeline should be in dot points. The content was very good! Great images!
--Joanne Raffel 01:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)I liked the use of pictures in the intial half of the page however the last section was lacking. Your page seemed quite limited on details. Your timeline needs to be broken up a bit with either subheadings or pictures and your evaluation should be before the current research section, possibly with the introduction. Otherwise I enjoyed your wikipage.
--Julianna Lam 01:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC) i think an introduction is necessary to introduce the topic. the use of pictures is good, especially liked the self drawn picture. the timeline and development should probably go before the uses of it. overall it looks good, good job !
--Darren Dizon 23:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Overall a really good effort on confocal microscopy. I liked how the content was informative but not too complicated. Pictures were used very well and the referencing of the work was above average. I may also steal how you guys have used in-text links throughout the page. Only advice is to think about redoing the timeline. It's a bit confusing at times having to read a timeline. Peace out
--Thomas Fox 22:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I really liked reading through your project page, the use of images throughout is awesome. I especially love the first student drawn diagram, complementing the text really well. Just one thing, maybe you could try putting in an actual timeline. Well done
--Rosita Pang 13:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Hey guys,
I like your project, it is clear and consize with properly cited diagrams. Additionally, I am also amazed by the computer drawn diagram that explained the machanism involved in Confocal Microscopy. It looks simply professional. It is also a good idea to add the hyperlinks to the glossary.
However, for the timeline and development, instead of presenting it in paragraphs, making it in dot-points form/ a table form may make it clearer.
--Dougall Norris 06:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, awesome stuff, awesome student drawn diagram, looks good enough to be in a textbook but i didnt really understand the beam splitter part.
I think the page is really well set out, a lot of well written and referenced information, with a huge glossary too, which was nice.
Not much more that i can develop on except that i think you really need to take each glossary word out of the hyperlink part (before the intro), because that is just way too long, i think the history and timeline would look better if it was displayed as a timeline with headings for the significant advances, and maybe show a little bit more information on the history (a couple of other groups have done that, so id have a look).
I also think its really cool that you put an evaluation on the end and the hyperlinks to the glossary in the text too. Just to let you know, the tissue damage hyperlink doesnt work.
So yeah, on the whole a job well done, just a few minor improvements needed
Excellent group 6. The project looks terrific, here are some points I thought might be useful:--Vishnnu Shanmugam 03:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Revise the contents at the top of the page as it’s growing out of control.
- The images are very well referenced with both the source (link form) and copyright information. There are also a lot of images that you composed yourself. Great Job!
- Revise in text referencing as a single reference at the end of an entire paragraph of text is not sufficient.
- You added a comprehensive glossary. Nice touch.
- Under the timeline and development section, try to create a timeline with dates and the corresponding historical confocal microscopy landmark
- Excellent balance of detailed text and point form text.
- Try to add pictures to the history, application and evaluation sections to complement the text.
--z3178608 22:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hello Group 6
When I first looked at your project page, I was really impressed by the diagram that your group has illustrated. I will just list down certain points after reading your web-page.
- Simple explanation of the mechanism for easy understanding.
- Appropriate use of hyperlinks to the glossary for the technical terms.
- Extensive coverage of available confocal microscopy and applications.
- For the history section, you may want to have a brief timeline of the significant events in the development of this microscopy technique.
Overall, this project is informative and enriching.
--Jin Lee 13:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Hello Group 6, Firstly, well done guys! I would say this page was interesting and have learnt a lot about confocal microscopy.
Here is my suggestions:
- provide the Introduction section. It is very important to give an overview of what the project is about.
- with mechanism section, although first bit was very visualising but I would with the texts, use the point forms to keep the info concise.
- with timeline and development, add some pictures like an image of Marvin Minsky etc.
Overall, well done!
--Jae Choi 12:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, Great project you have made. But I think it would be better if u provide the introduction part at the beginning of the page to give a simple idea of what confocal microscopy is. Also, subheadings for the Glossary part are unnecessary. Overall, you guys have done a great job. Cheers.
--Joseph Chuk 07:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Your project is intersting and I have leanrt a lot about cocnfocal microscopy. The advantages and limitations parts are very clear and precise. Good job! I think it should first start with a very brief introduction and description about what is confocal microscopy with a few sentences, instead of directly introduces the mechanisms. The word 'basic' may also be ommited. The glossary should not include the subheadings 5.X because it seems form the major part of the project, just glossary is fine. Overall well done!
--Angama Yaquobi 06:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Hi guys, as mentioned by others an introduction is compulsory to give readers an overview of the topic. The in-text links to the glossary and how they were bolded are very impressive and very helpful to a reader, it is a great idea that you guys have come up with. The drawn images are also great. There are large slabs of information under BASIC MECHANISM if you guys use a table or dot points to break it up would make your webpage perfect. I like the idea of using bolded subheadings under CURRENT USES & FUTURE DEVELOPMENT makes it very attractive to a reader and also great concise info covered. Overall, good job guys!
--z3252005 07:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 6. Your project is great. I especially like the in-text links to the glossary, great idea. Some improvements I could suggest are:
- In my opinion I think you guys need an introduction just to give the reader a general overview of the technique, its importance in cell biology and an outline of the page.
- Your basic mechanism section was well written, but compared to the other sections of your project it did not have a lot of in-text references. I think you may need some more references for that section.
- I also think that the timeline and development section would be better if it was placed before the basic mechanism section.
Overall I think you guys did a good job. This page was clear and understandable. The student drawn diagrams were also very good and helpful. Great job guys.
--z3256682 05:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Hi,
Overall good page. I'll give the following suggestions for your consideration: - an introduction is needed to bring readers up to speed. - possibly separate the CLSM, Nipkow Disk etc.. from the Basic Mechanisms, and have them as a separate more specialised technique section - up to you though. - timeline/development may work better as numbered/dotpoints. Images could relieve the heavy text strain. You also need to have MRC as Microscopy Research Centre as other readers may not understand it is a place and not a separate technique. - possibly images to illustrate the current uses and evaluation, though you have done that in other sections.
--David Williamson 03:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Very good work guys.
- Your page could do with an introduction summarising as simply as possible what confocal microscopes are and what they’re used for. I don’t know about you but often when I look up a Wikipedia page this is often all I’m looking for...
- The layout seems well thought out, but all the glossary points in the contents it makes it really long... You can still make the terms bold without them being section headings, but I don’t know if there’s a way to do this and maintain all the links to the glossary words in the text? Because the links to glossary points are maybe the best idea ever.
- The student diagram is epic. In the description I think you need to put your student number where it says “I, (student number)” though?
- I think the page is well written, making it possible for non-physics experts to understand what’s going on as well as why it matters. One tiny thing I noticed- Under CLSM where you say “Another use of the CLSM is the aperture size which is adjustable”, do you mean aperture size is a use, or like a property or an advantage of CLSM?
- Some bold subheadings would help drive home the main stages in the timeline.
Hi Group 6! First of all, your computer drawn images are seriously impressive- really clear and well designed! I think the "Timeline and Development" section would work better as the first section, so that we're introduced to the general idea and context of the technique before getting into the details of how it works. This section could also benefit from the use of a few subheadings or grouping of the developments into time eras, but that's purely a preference thing on my part. Your referencing is the best I've seen so far and is flawless apart from a couple of references that have been numbered twice (but i'm not sure if that's even avoidable!?). The links to the glossary are a great idea, but the spacing/layout makes it look a really long when compared to the length of the rest of the project and it's a shame that they all apear in the contents table. Overall, a well thought out and easy to understand project- well done! --Louisa Frew 14:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
--Begum Sonmez 11:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Hello Group 6. Can I just say that when I saw the content list, I didn’t like the LONG list. However, I really loved the link of many of the words to the glossary. That is a five star effort, and as a result, has helped me understand the technique of Confocal Microscopy more.
- I felt like there was no general introduction, and that the project went straight into the facts. An introduction is an important part of the project. It establishes the general status or role of the technique in the world.
- I noticed that there was a lot of information under the first part of the Mechanism section before the CLSMs heading. I would suggest getting rid of some of the text, but make use of dot points or a numbering system.
- I think the Timeline section could use and image or two, possible of Marvin Minsky, and/or the first confocal microscope.
- The structure and amount of text under Applications and Evaluation was good. It made good use of dot points, and summarised the main points (especially the limitations part).
Nice work though, but just a few more changes would really help.
--Katiana Shaw 06:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 6 - Some thoughts of your project:
- The explanation of the basic mechanism is really good, though I wonder whether your project could be improved slightly by having an introduction to introduce your project to the reader.
- I really like the in text links to the glossary - makes it easy to find out what a word means just by clicking on it. Good Idea!
- I would have liked to see the history put before an explanation of confocal microscopy, rather than half way through.
- I think the pictures you have used are great; the student drawn one is very impressive. I would like to see more pictures throughout the text, just to break it up a little and to supplement what you are saying.
A few slight changes and this is a really good project. Good work!
--z3252340 10:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Things I liked about your page: the diagram which explains the process of confocal microscopy - it is simple and conveys the process well, the inclusion of a glossary - it really helped when I didn't know what terms meant. To improve the page you may want to think of ways to reduce some of the large slabs of text - perhaps use some tables and also include an introduction explaining why it is relevant to Cell Biology.
Hey guys, I found some stuff on confocal microscopy --> http://www.physics.emory.edu/~weeks/confocal/ This website has a journal article as well as an easier summary of how it all works! It also has hand-drawings & maybe we can draw some diagrams similar to them? We cant directly use the pictures though. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030207 < this one we can use the pictures --Erika Unsworth 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
since there is a lab on confocal microscopy, we need to examine which elements aren't on that page that are fairly relevant. since his labs are reused, it will most likely involve newer technologies or methods--Justin Friedman 06:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I've done a bit more research and found three articles at http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/search?sendit=Search&pubdate_year=&volume=&firstpage=&DOI=&author1=&author2=&title=confocal+microscopy&andorexacttitle=and&titleabstract=&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=&andorexactfulltext=and&src=jcb&fmonth=Jan&fyear=1955&tmonth=Mar&tyear=2010&fdatedef=25+January+1955&tdatedef=22+March+2010&RESULTFORMAT=1&hits=10&hitsbrief=25&sortspec=date&sortspecbrief=date The last one is really good as it is an evaluation of the confocal technique. Also these articles have lots of pictures we can use but the only problem is the articles are a bit old, so I don't think they have much information on newer technologies! Also, we should start looking at dividing up the workload. We can put all our resources here so everybody can use them but everybody can focus on a different aspect? what do you guys think? e.g. INTRODUCTION (& CONCLUSION if we want)- timeline and quick summary of what confocal microscopy is , MECHANICS- how the microscope works, EVALUATION- pro/cons in comparison with other microscopes and examples of where the microscope is used. --Erika Unsworth 20:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
JACKPOT! --> http://www.microscopyu.com/references/confocalmicroscopy.html ~ plenty of suggested journal articles on confocal microscopy!--Erika Unsworth 08:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The confocal microscope essentially works by excluding much of the light that would enter a conventional light microscope. This makes the image appear sharper. By looking at a point of the cell using lasers it is able to build up a three dimensional model of the cell surface. 
WE NEED: -Referenced research articles, -Referenced review articles, -Images of Cells using method, -Drawn diagram
as you can see on the page, i have added a bit of stuff for my section. it includes a drawn diagram as well as pictures of cells using the confocal microscope as required by this assessment. so you guys don't need to worry about including those elements if you don't need to. i also have a link to a movie which is pretty rad. just have to do the laser scanning microscope and nipkow disk then the rest is up to you guys :)
Hey guys, we still have to include the hand-drawn diagram! --Erika Unsworth 22:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure it has to be hand drawn Erika? Because I have a picture up that was drawn in paint. Also, we need to fill in the glossary. You need to pit up your references as well. Make sure it's in pubmed format if possible
Paint sounds good! I've put up some more glossary definitions but there are still some missing definitions and/or referencing- if you guys come across any of them in your research please put them up =) I'm gonna try and find more textbooks! (theres 7 definitions to fix up)--Erika Unsworth 01:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Stuff to add:
- An Introduction
- Restructuring so that it goes intro/basics, history, mechanism, applications etc.
- Fix PAM
- More pictures for history and applications
- Glossary items:
- Pseudorandom sequence
- Spatial Light Modulator (SLM)
- Digital Micro-mirror Device (DMD)
- Emission Ligth
- Zirconium Arc