Difference between revisions of "Talk:2013 Group 6 Project"

From CellBiology
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{2013 Project discussion}}
 
{{2013 Project discussion}}
 +
 +
 +
Group 6 <br />
 +
<b>Introduction</b><br />
 +
*Simple and effective. All the information I needed to know was there. Cool picture too. The picture would be better as a thumb and a subheading within the thumb to explain what it is. <br />
 +
<b>Meiosis v mitosis</b><br />
 +
*This looked confusing as it was dot points within sub-sub headings within sub-headings under the ‘meiosis mitosis’ heading. Removing the numbered dot points and instead writing out the information as sentences would help it look better and flow better too. <br />
 +
*I feel some more information could be added. The difference between meiosis and mitosis wasn’t really explained. <br />
 +
<b>MAT</b><br />
 +
*Good info and succinct. Well written. Not much criticism for this section. <br />
 +
<b>Sister chromatid separation</b><br />
 +
*Information was well structured and formatted. Interesting section, well done! My only issue was that there was no citation in the first paragraph yet quite a bit of information. <br />
 +
<b>Anaphase-telophase AND kinetochores</b><br />
 +
*Similar to MAT section – This was a good read. Very interesting, well written and not an overload of information. Referencing is good. Good use of pictures however putting one to the left could help them ‘pop’ a bit more. <br />
 +
<b>Chromosomal motors, molecular aspects of anaphase</b> <br />
 +
*Overall, these are good sections. Well done, I enjoyed reading these and learnt a lot. <br />
 +
*Good use of sub-headings. Broke up information well. <br />
 +
*Pictures would help break up text<br />
 +
<b>Defects</b><br />
 +
*Good section, its good to know what can go wrong if processes don’t occur properly. <br />
 +
*Some points were a lot to take in. Try making some of the points a little more succinct. <br />
 +
*Good use of pictures, good referencing. <br />
 +
<b>Current/suggested research</b><br />
 +
*Good sections. Information is well structured, not too much to take in.
 +
*A good glossary – Not too large and defined a lot of relevant terms.
 +
 +
 +
  
 
'''Group 6'''
 
'''Group 6'''

Revision as of 14:34, 23 May 2013

2013 Projects: Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7

  1. Do not remove this notice {{2013 Project discussion}} from the top of the discussion page.
  2. Newest student comments should be entered at the top of this current page under the subheading "Student Discussion Area" (you cannot edit the sub-heading title).
  3. All comments should begin with your own signature button, that will automatically enter student number date/time stamp.
  4. Do not use your full name here in discussion, if absolutely necessary you may use first names only.
  5. Do not remove or edit other student comments.
  6. Use sub-headings if you want to add other draft information, images, references, etc.
  7. Only your own group members should edit this page, unless directed otherwise by the course co-ordinator.

Group Assessment Criteria

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of cell biology.
  7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

Week 2 Project topic selection, preliminary researching on the topic.

Week 3 By the next practical class (after the mid-session break) there should be sub-headings and content on your actual project page and interactions between individual group members on this discussion page.

Week 4 Each group member should now have selected 4 papers relevant to their section of the project. These, or any other papers, can now be used to generate content (text, images and tables) within the project page. Students can also work on additional sub-headings on the project page.

Week 8 Peer assessment of group project work.

  • Each student will carry out an assessment of all Group projects other than their own.
  • This written assessment should then be pasted on the actual project discussion page and your own individual student page.
  • The peer assessment for each project should be concise and include both positive and negative critical analysis of the current project status.
  • The actual assessment criteria (shown above) can be used if you like.
  • Each student assessment should be your own work and be completed before the next Lab.


Group 6
Introduction

  • Simple and effective. All the information I needed to know was there. Cool picture too. The picture would be better as a thumb and a subheading within the thumb to explain what it is.

Meiosis v mitosis

  • This looked confusing as it was dot points within sub-sub headings within sub-headings under the ‘meiosis mitosis’ heading. Removing the numbered dot points and instead writing out the information as sentences would help it look better and flow better too.
  • I feel some more information could be added. The difference between meiosis and mitosis wasn’t really explained.

MAT

  • Good info and succinct. Well written. Not much criticism for this section.

Sister chromatid separation

  • Information was well structured and formatted. Interesting section, well done! My only issue was that there was no citation in the first paragraph yet quite a bit of information.

Anaphase-telophase AND kinetochores

  • Similar to MAT section – This was a good read. Very interesting, well written and not an overload of information. Referencing is good. Good use of pictures however putting one to the left could help them ‘pop’ a bit more.

Chromosomal motors, molecular aspects of anaphase

  • Overall, these are good sections. Well done, I enjoyed reading these and learnt a lot.
  • Good use of sub-headings. Broke up information well.
  • Pictures would help break up text

Defects

  • Good section, its good to know what can go wrong if processes don’t occur properly.
  • Some points were a lot to take in. Try making some of the points a little more succinct.
  • Good use of pictures, good referencing.

Current/suggested research

  • Good sections. Information is well structured, not too much to take in.
  • A good glossary – Not too large and defined a lot of relevant terms.



Group 6

Hello group 6

Introduction A very quick introduction, I think you jump into mentioning specifics too soon, save this for later on in the page. Also some spelling errors “ANALHASE promoting complex” laughed way too long at that. Nice image used but it needs to be referenced properly, with a brief description, copyright notice and with the student image template included.

Meiosis vs mitosis a short section, perhaps you can elaborate on it after the dot points. An image here would be great.

History of Anaphase Think about putting this section straight after the introduction. A better expression for “figure out” in the first timeline description. An image of one of the prominent scientists could work here. The references included here are external links, let’s get those in the reference list down the bottom (Y)

Process of Sister Chromatid Separation Sister chromatid separation during anaphase is considered one of the main process of cell division. Just grammar – Separation of sister chromatids during anaphase is considered to be one of the main processes of cell division Some references lacking in this first paragraph also. The image used here is a bit small but it’s student drawn, so I like it A LOT!

Defects resulting from anaphase malformation - There’s a lot of text here, just needs a proofread.

Some more links to current papers would be good in the current research section.


z3377769 Peer Mark

Group 6 peer review 1. Content and writing - Introduction o Very good, but what does that picture next to introduction relate to? - Mitosis vs meiosis o Why not a table? o It’s a very brief section but if that is all there is too it. Well done - History o Did nothing happen between 1879 and 1925 o Has nothing happened since 1943? o As far as the table is concerned I like the amount of content you have in each time point, not too much but enough to give an idea of what was discovered - Metaphase to anaphase transition o Given you have defined MAT in the title you could probably use it again at the beginning of the section. o Very good, that flowchart really helps clarify the meaning - Process of sister chromatid separation o I’d have a comma after which indicates in sentence 3 o This is just my opinion but why are you talking about reasonably extensively about cohesin which negates chromatid separation, when this section is about separation o Second paragraph very good o Still talking about cohesin? o This section is good, but it seems to mostly ‘take place’ before separation - Anaphase to telophase o Nice diagram o Out of interest, what process dictates whether a cell undergoes the conventional or short cut methods of progressing from anaphase to telophase? o This is good, why not expand on that last sentence as well? What are those cellular processes that bypass mitotic slippage? - Kinetochores  Last sentence, a poleward force? As opposed to forces  Very good o Nonkinetochores  Do not contain. As opposed to does not contain  I reckon get rid of “it is found that the”. Just start the sentence with kinetochore  Sentence 4. If the chromatin is absent? And that are those numbers?  What is nondisjunction?  Not bad at all, needs polish - Chromosomal motors o Plus end  Expand on this section. More content please o Minus end  Assembling of THE spindle  That function is making sure? As opposed to “in making sure”  Silencing the SAC that functionS … and thus decides whether TO  Very good o Molecular aspect  CDK1 • What is Cdk1? Define it. • What does it do when fully activated?  APC/C • It is imported for another APC substrate TO BE destroyed • Very brief, but good, squeeze out more mechanisms if you can. What does it do? How does it do it?  Cyclin B an securing? • Are both substrateS • Again very good, but you haven’t talked about what these two substrates do, or how they do it  Cohesin • Very good, let that be an exemplar for your other molecular sections  SAC • Does anything occur if a single kinetochore is detached? Is there a molecular reaction to the anomaly? o Defects  Bullet point 1: Not sure?  Bullet point 2: Great use of the external link  3: Neurological disorders for example?  3: Is this the future research section? Why are there maybes and may grant us type sentences?  4: “this is referred to as nondisjunction from which aneuploidy results” • “one well known aneuploidy is downs syndrome, in this case there are 3 copies of the 21st chromosome instead of two” • Edwards syndrome is trisomy 18 not 13 • The aforementioned chromosomal disorders. Not the above mentioned.  5: very good  6: very good again, but I think you should with all your bullet points, begin by talking about the disease, then work back to the molecular mechanisms o Current research • What molecular study? • Why don’t you have “some examples into current research of anaphase are:” o Suggested research  Very good - Overall I think this is a good project, you do need to have more references in some paragraphs and you could provide more content on certain sections that I’ve mentioned. 2. Referencing - As above, combine ideas and hypothesis from around the scientific community not just one source one paragraph - Images have all the correct copyright information, well done 3. Elements of teaching - This is pitched at a really good level, the technical language is used wisely and not put in just for the sake of it. You have done very well, but more content is needed and I think there are sections where you all could be a bit more direct with what you are saying, stick to your subheadings. 4. Presentation - Very good, make sure all your images have captions explaining what they refer to. Could have a table for mitosis vs meiosis section maybe?


z3374507 assessment - Group 6

The key points of Anaphase are presented in the headings.

The images supplement the text very well.

The text is referenced properly. The balance of text and images is good.

The glossary makes understanding the rest of the content much easier.

The group has shown that they have done a significant amount of research-particularly the current research.


Though the key points are present, a bit more content in some areas would be good (meiosis vs mitosis, history and molecular aspects of anaphase).

Several of the images lack proper referencing and a description.

The general formatting of the page could be improved by changing the position of the text and images.


Group 6-Anaphase

Introduction

  • In the information there are spelling mistakes that need to be corrected.
  • There is no table of contents
  • You need to talk about what you are covering in the project in the introduction.
  • The image uploaded needs to be uploaded properly eg description of the image, reference, copyright information.
  • You are talking about specific things that you can talk about later on.

Meiosis Vs Mitosis

  • I think this section should come after the history.
  • You need to reference the information posted.

History

  • The history is very brief.
  • There needs to be points made after 1943.
  • You might want to choose another colour rather than purple as it is hard to read the information.
  • The points have been correctly referenced and the information is relevant.
  • I think the picture you have posted on the far right hand side shoudl be pasted in the history table rather than out onto the side.

Metaphase to Anaphase Transition

  • The information is good and well researched but does not flow. The sentences are short so it seems like you are just stating facts.
  • Excellent use of the student made image.

Process of Chromatid Separation

  • There needs to be references in the first paragraph.
  • A possibly image would be good.

Anaphase to Telophase

  • You might want to include a brief description of the cell cycle or explain the chronology of the cell cycle so that this and the section above makes more sense.
  • Again a possible image?

Kinetochores

  • good referencing and use of image.
  • The image is uploaded has a description which is good.
  • The explanation of what kinetochores is excellent.
  • There are some grammatical errors that need to be fixed.
  • There are random numbers in brackets which dont belong there.

Chromosomal Motors

  • Where are these chromosomal motors as in maybe a diagram because im not sure where these chromosomal arms are.
  • Good use of references.

Molecular aspects of Anaphase

  • I think you shoudl put a table for this information as the there isnt much text so a table would be appropriate and itll be better than a list.
  • You have referenced very well.

Defects

  • Get rid of "no references part at the top"
  • The information is succinct and informative
  • It is accompanied with images that are relevant.

Current Research/Suggested Research

  • Researched well and it is excellent that youve segregated the information by time.
  • It is referenced sufficiently for this section
  • Good information in the suggested research as it is detailed and specific.

Overall The format of this project needs to be fixed however the projeact is researched well and certain sections just need to be fixed up and some sections need to be proof read.


z3374087 assessment

The introduction provides a brief structure and function of anaphase however it is too short and needs to address a bit more topics to be complete. I suggest including a very brief history and description of what the project is going to talk about. The meiosis vs mitosis section is a bit too short and needs more detail Also it is structured too early in the page. Put is after a description of what anaphase is and the overall function so that the viewer understands this process of cell division before making comparisons and contrasts between them. The history is too short and requires more research and relations to anaphase. It also needs to be reorganised before the “meiosis vs mitosis” section. The information provided from “metaphase to anaphase transition” to ‘chromosomal motors” is extensive and well described. They are backed up with sufficient visual aid however these pictures are too small. Even though the viewer can click on them it is good to make them larger to not only break up the paragraphs and allow the information to flow better but also to make it more visually appealing. This ultimately will maintain the reader’s attention while reading. The chromosomal motors section does identify the two (+ and -) motors however the information regarding them is insufficient and required diagrams especially in this section. Think of describing the structure, function and role of these molecular motors and getting pictures that illustrate this. It is great that in the “molecular aspect of anaphase” section you have described different molecular components and their contribution to the completion of the overall process. It is also good that you left this for later in the group page because the reader would have understood the overall process by then before looking at these components and their responsibilities. The defects section is very descriptive however the paragraphs need more spacing apart because it appears to convoluted and content heavy. The current research section is great because it shows an example in chronological order from 2008 to 2011 so that the reader can understand research the path that is being followed for anaphase and where we are heading in the future. The glossary is not long enough and requires much more terms used throughout the project. The referencing however is exceptional and extensive giving the reader the understanding that alot of research went into this group assignment. Overall this is definitely a HD worthy group project with a few more visual stimuli added.


Peer Marking for Group 6

Immediately, what sticks out is the fact that the formatting is different from all the other pages. It is missing the table with all the subheadings, should immediately be fixed. Because of this, the heading formatting is thrown off on the page. Either way, introduction does a good job at explaining what the topic is about. The picture is nice too but should be aligned better or resized as well as include a title as I am unsure as to what I am looking at. The Meiosis versus mitosis section would be better represented in a table as they are comparing two processes. History table is clearly incomplete as it stops at 1943. Might be due to time constraints that it is not complete and should be done so soon. MAT section was good as well as process of sister chromatid separation and anaphase to telophase. While diagrams were included, it would be better at a larger size as the picture itself is not too colourful and would not distract. Following sections cover their respective topics well but seem to have too many references for things like one simple sentence ‘meiotic cell like oocytes does not contain centrosomes’ has three references. Defects resulting… section seems to be better formatted than the previous sections but still is a large wall of text. Dot points help, but the random statement about referencing should be removed. Since current research is divided by year, it might be a good idea to present it as a table and include photos of the relevant studies. Suggested research section does suggest that the group has explored all aspects of the topic and found relevant journals, along with the further reading section. Glossary is impressive, except for the ‘blah’ definitions. Lots of good discussion went on, although the formatting was a little weird and took some getting used to. Seems like they should be on their way to finishing a good wiki page soon.


Peer Review

Group 6: Anaphase

First thing I noticed was that you have no contents box at the top with the headings/sub-headings listed which is odd.

Second thing I noticed was the great immunofluorescent image of a cell in anaphase. Great image, but does it have copyright information?

Intro: There’s no references included in the introduction which is a problem, and there are a couple of spelling and grammatical errors.

History: The table is a great way of presenting history information, but there’s not a lot of content here.

Body: you might need to review the layout of your page, it doesn’t seem to flow very well and some sub-headings only have 1 sentence in them.

Research: This section is very interesting. Perhaps a couple of pictures would bring it up even more.


Group 6 – Anaphase

The introductory paragraph is a good start, but needs some more work. Perhaps a little bit more description briefly summarising the other sections of the wiki page in the introduction would make it more substantial. There are also no references. There is a nice image in this section, but it does not have the reference.

“Meiosis versus mitosis” section is very brief. You need to add some more detail and perhaps add some images to support the text.

The history section is lacking content. You need to add more years and descriptions of the discoveries in those years. It’s good that you have added references for each of the discoveries you’ve mentioned so far. However the references are external links. You need to make the references on the actual wiki page so that they appear at the bottom of the wiki page in the references section. Perhaps adding some images to support some of the discoveries would make this section look more interesting. The table format is a good idea.

Metaphase to anaphase transition (MAT) section is also quite brief.

Process of sister chromatid separation is detailed and has appropriate referencing. However there are no images in this section. It would be good to add an image to support the text.

“Anaphase to telophase”, “Chromosomal motors” and “Molecular aspect of anaphase” sections are all reasonably detailed so far, and has appropriate referencing. However there are no images to support the text. It would be good to add some images.

Kinetochores section has a good image with the correct referencing.

“Defects resulting from anaphase malformation” section is very good so far, with correct referencing. However, the text are all too close together, it would be better to put some spaces between the dot point paragraphs. The two images in this section have correct referencing. Current research section is reasonably good so far. You need to add some more images to support the research papers you were summarising.

The glossary list has some words with no definitions next to them. Please add the definitions soon. Overall the project is moderately good but needs some more work.

Group 6 peer review

Introduction: I think the introduction has too much mention of the specifics already. The introduction should instead be a broad overview of anaphase and the aspects of it that the wiki will be exploring.

Meiosis vs mitosis: I like the way this is set out. The numbering makes it easy to read and it’s a no-nonsense structure that clearly and concisely gets the information across.

History: Be careful when using dark colours. The text might be difficult to see. I think 4 entries are not enough for the history table. It does not effectively show the evolution of knowledge in this field. Each entry has been referenced which is good to see. The image with the thumbnail ‘further history’ is rather misleading. There was no historical information.

Sections which follow: The information was good. However a number of the images are not accompanied with any supporting information. Providing information with your images not only shows initiative but also complements the information in text body. I also noticed that that all the images are on the right. It would look much better if some of the images were moved to the left. There is a good use of headings and subheadings.

Defects: There has clearly been extensive research here but it’s presented as a massive chunk of writing which I don’t particularly want to read. Subheadings will enhance this section and make it easier to read.

Current research: Well researched and well set out. Maybe a table might be better?

Further comments: Upon looking at the discussion page, it is clearly evident that group members have proposed and discussed improvements to the page and then acted upon them. There’s no index at the start. Some of the references appear multiple times on the list.

Group 6: Anaphase

  • Introduction: the first few sentences are a good way introducing the anaphase process and when it starts. However, the rest of the paragraph should be edited because you haven’t actually discussed why the spindle fibres are an essential part of anaphase or why you should even focus on them. You’ve just described their function and I don’t think you need to go into that much detail at this stage. Also, you have to state the aim of the wiki page and what aspects of anaphase you will be exploring (this helps to orientate you reader and also set the context for the upcoming information). There is an uploaded image that has no description at all. You really do need to describe what the image is illustrating so it becomes more meaningful to the reader. Also, ensure that yo provide correct referncing with the images that you upload.
  • Meioses Vs, Mitosis: This information should ideally come after the History table. Also, maybe you could talk about the processes of meioses and mitoses and then talk about the importance of anaphase in these processes.
  • History: Unfortunately you only have three entries and it only goes up to 1943. You need to research further and make sure you add recent discoveries as well. Though I like the colour which you have used for the table as it makes the information nice and easy to read.
  • Metaphase to Anaphase transition: Your information is great but you have quite a few grammatical errors. There are a few sentences which you need to use a full stop and NOT a comma. Also, maybe you should consider re-naming the image because the title ‘further history’ does not explain much about the image and you have not included any description.
  • Process of sister chromatid separation: You’ve explained this section well and you have made clear the importance of sororin protei in the sister chromatid separation though you really do need to cite where you got the information from for the very first paragraph. Also, your image has no description and again this is not going to contribute positively to the information that you have written.
  • Anaphase to Telophase: Maybe it would be a good idea if you actually mentioned what telophase is and why it is preceded by anaphase as you start by explaining how the transition from anaphase to telophase occurs. Once again, there is an image with no description whatsoever; you need to provide some sort of explanation of what is illustrating and maybe its importance in this context.
  • Kinetochores: I like how you’ve actually explained what kinetochores are and its importance in anaphase and I am pleased to finally see an image with a description of what the picture is actually showing! Also, maybe you should consider joining the following subheading, chromosomal motors, together as that are both short.
  • Molecular Aspects of Anaphase: I strongly recommend a table for the information presented under this partiucluar subheading. You mention various molecules and proteins (e.g. separase, APC/c) which are best explained in table. Though it’s good that you have referenced them properly, something that needs to be corrected in other parts of the page.
  • Defects resulting from anaphase malformation: I can see that this part of the page has been well researched but I think it is not user friendly and not as effective as it should be. You really do need to cut down on the amount of information that you have provided. Be more succinct with how problems can arise when the chromosomes do not properly separate in anaphase. It’s great to see descriptions accompanying the images that you have uploaded.
  • Current research: You’ve done a very good job for this section, recent information has been provided on the research that is happening in this area.
  • The glossary This appears to be almost completed but you should try to directly link some of the words in the information above to the glossary. Also, there is no student drawn image which is something that needs to be addressed.



Peer Assessment

Introduction:

  • Good summary of what happens in anaphase is and its significance
  • Could mention what will be discussed on the page
  • A few grammatical errors exist and there some sentences which could be rephrased
  • Image thumb could use a caption. The image itself doesn’t have any of the required info (i.e. referencing, copyright clearance etc.)
  • References are missing

Meiosis vs Mitosis

  • All the important points are noted, however, I think that it could be better to write full sentences and maybe more of a description of what is happening in each stage, seems a little “dot-pointy”
  • Diagram comparing meiosis and mitosis would be useful (could be a student drawn image)
  • Referencing is missing

History:

  • This section needs more work
  • There’s quite a big gap between 1879 and 1925, may want to see if there was any significant findings between these dates
  • Citations appear as links to the papers and should be linked and appear on the reference list

Metaphase to Anaphase Transition (MAT):

  • Information here is easy to understand but could be structured a little better, sentences are a little short
  • The image of the dividing cells looks to be out of place, is it really necessary? The links in this image are not present and could be added to the end of the history section instead
  • The student diagram is a good addition; however, it could use a more descriptive legend explaining each of the steps shown. It could be moved to accompany the text in the section

Process of Sister Chromatid Separation:

  • The information in this section is well summarised
  • Reference missing for the first paragraph?
  • An image of the chromatids separating would useful

Anaphase to Telophase:

  • Good use of student drawn image, could be explained a little further in the legend
  • Well summarised info, but I some of it could be expanded a little more

Kinetochores:

  • Feel as though the kinetochores subheading isn’t needed again
  • There are some grammatical errors in this section
  • PMID numbers toward the end need to be converted to references
  • Referencing of the image not right and according to the copyright statement, this image might not be able

Chromosomal Motors:

  • I feel this section could be expanded a little more, especially the plus-ended subheading
  • Could also include a diagram indicating where these motors are

Molecular Aspect of Anaphase:

  • This section has been summarised well and the concepts have been explained well
  • Good use of subheadings

Defects:

  • This section contains very interesting info that is well explained and summarised
  • Images are a great accompaniment to the text. Referencing though should be fixed and the second image could be a little bigger

Current and suggested Research:

  • These sections have been well researched, providing a variety of interesting studies

Overall, the topic has been well summarised and subheadings used are good. There is good use of student diagrams, but could use a few more images. Some of the sections could be elaborated a little more and grammar should also be looked at. I like the addition of further reading. Some of the citations within the text don’t appear in the reference list, they appear as links to the papers and some references appear twice in the reference list.

Group 6 Introduction is well written, introduces the amount of time and what occurs, comparison against mitosis and meiosis is nice to have, i always like to see how they differ. History table is a nice colour, may need more text but that's up to the availability of the research. Nicely broken down into sections, and isn't text heavy. I like the pictures, especially the flow charts. All the proteins and cyclins are listed which is good to see and how they have an affect. There's a sentence just under the defects you might want to check out but that section is super well written as is the current research. Glossary done but i think you have an issue with the references in that section. But a really nice simple page thats easy to understand and not overloading.


Intro image size changed to 300px, you guys think it looks better larger? L.--Z3375878 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2013 (EST)


_ _N O T O C_ _ (no spaces anywhere) to remove table, delete to make visible again. L. --Z3375878 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2013 (EST)


References 16/17, 30/31, 47/48 and 49/50 are still duplicates!!! L.Z3375878 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (EST)


Yup! B--Z3292017 (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2013 (EST)


Hey, should I still upload the spindle section? --Z3371084 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (EST)


I think its looking good now guys! So after the peer assessment we will aim to finsih it up with lots of pictures to make the page more interesting. I have changed around the structure slightly so that it flows better and have added the introduction! B--Z3292017 (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2013 (EST)


coming along good guys :) make sure everyones respective sections are uploaded before our lab/tute on thursday :)--Z3330795 (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2013 (EST)

Just added a "further reading" subheading, I think it'd be interesting to add links or images etc. with extra information we've come across that might be worthy of mention. What do you guys think? L. --Z3375878 (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2013 (EST)


Yeah I'm good for suggested research, I came across some pretty interesting information that I think would be a waste to delete simply because its a little older

References #22-25 are repeats, I'd fix it if I knew how but I didn't get a chance to ask Mark/see when he did it in the lab so if either of your two remember from your other class then could you please fix it! Thanks in advance, L. --Z3375878 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2013 (EST)


perhaps "suggested research" as a new heading?

also everyone keep going on your glossary additions, remeber that our target audience isnt medical science students its general public.

possible some hand drawn diagram??

--Z3330795 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2013 (EST)


Anybody have any interesting ideas on how to jazz up the page a bit and perhaps organize it better? I thought that maybe for suggested research or current research we could give the date and brief summary in a table and then show/hide the rest so that people are able to read more about it if they want but if they dont need to then they won't get confused with the details, any of you embryology guys know if this is possible?

Also anyone come up with any possible new sub headings? I thought I'd divide current research and suggested research since there's quite alot of interesting things in there that I really didn't wanna delete, simply because they were a little old - anyone think it makes it more confusing or anything?

B - could you change the color of the history table please? It may be harder to see black writing on a dark background color

Is everyone good with the Wikipedia anaphase image as our cover image?

Thanks, L. --Z3375878 (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2013 (EST)

Hey everyone! Sorry about not uploading my section - it is saved on my other computer which has temporarily had a fit! In regards to the table L we can create another column where we can add the images -let's discuss today in class! In regards to the image at the top, I have found some but I will ask Mark today if we can put it as a "cover photo" like I did in embryology! B - Z3292017 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2013 (EST)


Hey guys, how's everyone's sections coming along? B have you looked into the large image for the top? Also no one forget to add the glossary as you go!!! For current research, I've just put some notes/questions on the page if you guys could take a look, or we can just do it Thursday. By an image a paragraph, what should we do if it's a table? Thanks, L. --Z3375878 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2013 (EST)


Hey i have work tonight but my section will be complete by lab tomorrow, its all in word documents and needs to be transferred across :) --Z3330795 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2013 (EST)

Hey guys,

As agreed here are our sections - if we do find any articles relating to the other sections we can post the links on the discussion page so that we don't mess up our actual page :)

J - anaphase in mitosis and spindle app

L - defects and current research

Ja - met to an and an to tel, history

B - Anaphase meiosis and sister chromatid etc

Note: I will set up a glossary - so any words that may come across as "new" we can put them down therer (the word in bold and the definition in normal).

ALSO - for every paragraph we write we need AT LEAST 1 picture or graph to represent what we are talking about - we should aim for 50% writing and 50% visual!

Thanks, B --Z3292017 (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2013 (EST)


- Sounds good, we'll talk about it more tomorrow, sorry I haven't had a chance to work on it yet but I'll get right to it soon. Also I think you should delete the info you're putting here and put it on the actual page to prevent confusion

Also to whoever made the Anaphase-Promoting-Complex page, what's gonna happen with that?

--Z3375878 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2013 (EST)

Articles: PMID: 16982610 - The Anaphase-promoting Complex/Cyclosome Inhibitor Emi2 Is Essential for Meiotic but Not Mitotic Cell Cycles

PMID: 17459880 - Mitotic Phosphorylation of the Anaphase-promoting Complex Inhibitory Subunit Mnd2 Is Necessary for Efficient Progression through Meiosis I


Hi guys,

I'll also do the difference between anaphase in mitosis and meiosis :) Thanks, --Z3292017 (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2013 (EST)


Hi! In regards to the information section, there is a lot to put there so I think you and I should split the work. I'll focus on the sister chromatid separation this week, but we should also get together this Thursday and discuss what else we can put in. In regards to current research, leave that for the time being as we really need to sort out who's doing what so that we all have equal contributions.

See you all Thursday, --Z3292017 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2013 (EST)


--Z3330795 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2013 (EST) My four articles were all associated with transisiton from metaphase to anaphase and then from anaphase to telephase.

Article 1, Identifies subtle differences between different species mitotic processes very own APC/C. [1]

Article 2, Identifies APC role in initiating Anaphase. [2]

Article 3, Role of regulatory proteins in coordination of Metaphase to anaphase transition. [3]

Article 4, Proves a way to by pass regular cellular requirements by chemical means. [4]

I have infact started the content contribution with these sub headings in mind & created a simplistic diagram. I will continue to add content to the below:

1.Metaphase to Anaphase transition

2.Anaphase to Telophase

3.Process of sister chromatid separation

I will also start to add to the current research sub heading, however if any one comes across a good current research article dont hesitate to share with me.

If you would like to contact me by other means my email address is , jared_berndt@hotmail.com


--Mark Hill (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2013 (EST) OK guys some action here, we need 4 papers from each of you before the Prac next week and the actual Project page still lacks sub-headings.


- Instead of doing the history, I'll leave that for later and start on the introduction because it might tie the topic in all together and new sub-topics might come up which may be worthy of mention/their own sub-heading. I know we said we'd do this later but it might keep us on track and direct us. --Z3375878 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2013 (EST)


- Anyone have any ideas on sub-headings? Also are we going to just be talking about Anaphase in humans or can we say use examples of defects from other creatures? --Z3375878 (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2013 (EST)


- I found 2 about the spindle, I'll keep looking for articles about the defects however I haven't yet found anything about the history, anyone had any luck?--Z3375878 (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2013 (EST)

- For this week's lab assessment I'll do the defects--Z3375878 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2013 (EST)

- I'll do the spindle fibers topic for the next lab assessment--Z3371084 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2013 (EST)

- I'll do the history topic --Z3375878 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2013 (EST)

- Point to remember about when we start referencing our text later: DO NOT cite reviews, e.g. don't cite the review if the review mentions the result of the study its reviewing. Cite the ORIGINAL PAPER that actually found the result.

Don't use too much information from textbooks - find stuff out directly from research papers and articles, and get most info/images from these sources. Allowed ONE really good image from Wikipedia.

Start with reviews then move onto research papers.

I suggest we just choose a random topic that we will each cover for the sake of speeding up research progress and for the next lab assessment - we could then change topic if we don't like it --Z3375878 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2013 (EST)


- Hi guys, I've started to create the page - I think it should be split up with intro, history, then a relatively large section on the whole process (I've put some points down as to how we should perhaps separate it), defects resulting from anaphase, and finally current research. If you guys have any suggestions, please post them here.

Currently I think we should continue to find any research articles in regards to anaphase and perhaps post up some summaries in the appropriate section - then once more information has come through we can decide on who does what task! Thanks! --Z3292017 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2013 (EST)


- So how are we going to approach this first, just find articles and journals etc. until we get a good idea of what it's all about and maybe we can then do some planning? --Z3375878 (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2013 (EST)


Here are some syndromes related to nondisjunction (fail to separate properly): Down syndrome, Patau syndrome, Edward's syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, Turner's syndrome--Z3371084 (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2013 (EST)

Articles about Anaphase (Meiosis)--Z3371084 (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2013 (EST) [1] [2] [3] [4]


--Z3292017 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2013 (EST) (I MOVED THIS INFORMATION TO THE DISCUSSION PAGE INSTEAD OF THE PROJECT PAGE!


- This is our first comment --Z3292017 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2013 (EST)


  1. <pubmed>23533609</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed>9425344</pubmed>
  3. <pubmed>17334950</pubmed>
  4. <pubmed>22321970</pubmed>