User talk:Z3256316

From CellBiology

Peer Review

Group 1 - Fluorescent PCR:

I thought the information was quite thorough. Great combination of images including graphs. Some images however did not have copyright info. A glossary would also definitely help!


Group 2 - RNA Interference:

Ensure that all images are referenced and have their copyright info. Other than that, great content structure. The headings were appropriate - and wow, a citations list! Good effort as well in the student drawn diagram!


Group 3 - Immunohistochemistry:

Ensure that images are referenced and copyright info written. I liked all your tables of comparing advantages and disadvantages. Great reference list - shows thorough research!


Group 4 - Cell Culture:

Wow guys great job! All images were labeled, referenced and copyright info cited. Great glossary! The only thing I probably would have to comment on is the references. Other projects have more references. Remember more references means a more thorough research, more reliable info, etc. It seems you have sufficient info anyway but I guess if you decide to look at more sources you might be surprised that you missed out on something.


Group 5 - Electron Microscopy:

I think more headings would help. Excellent reference list. Quantity of images - good!


Group 6 - Confocal Microscopy:

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!


Group 7 - Monoclonal Antibodies:

Great page guys! Reference list was good - shows thorough research. I guess all I have to say is - more images would be good!


Group 8 - Microarray:

(OWN GROUP)


Group 9 - Fluorescent Proteins:

Link your references guys. Good pictures - maybe add a bit more. Glossary needs to be completed and perhaps make the word bold. You all have the info just need to do a few more extra things to complete your project!


Group 10 - Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer:

I think I like this page the best. Good job! Well structured, informative, and well referenced. Pictures used are referenced appropriately and copyright info written. Some of the images used were from webpages. Because the sources are not from journals, if you can find a replacement maybe - one with a more reliable source would probably even improve your page.