Difference between revisions of "Talk:Group 1 Project - Fluorescent-PCR"
|Line 11:||Line 11:|
* A few mistakes in grammar.
* A few mistakes in grammar.
--[[User:Z3254934|Shoahaib Karimi]] 04:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)I'll get staright into it, you need to draw your own image so probably you can use paint to draw one of the images, you seem to have drawn your references correctly, the use of heaps of complicated words would be hard to understand by some people so probably make a glossary. You have great diagrams which help to
--[[User:Z3254934|Shoahaib Karimi]] 04:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)I'll get staright into it, you need to draw your own image so probably you can use paint to draw one of the images, you seem to have drawn your references correctly, the use of heaps of complicated words would be hard to understand by some people so probably make a glossary. You have great diagrams which help to it all.
Revision as of 17:55, 12 May 2010
--Mark Hill 04:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Lab 8 Assessment - 23 student reviews.
--Ozgur Tuna 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Good effort guys! Good organization of the page and very useful information about PCR.
Here are some points to consider for improvement:
- Glossary is missing
- Some pictures are small and writings are blurry, not easy to read.
- More references can be good. References section is too short.
- Maybe a table can be used for better, easier understanding in the Comparison section when talking about advantages provided by F-PCR compared to C-PCR
- A few mistakes in grammar.
--Shoahaib Karimi 04:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)I'll get staright into it, you need to draw your own image so probably you can use paint to draw one of the images, you seem to have drawn your references correctly, the use of heaps of complicated words would be hard to understand by some people so probably make a glossary. You are missing some references. You have great diagrams which help to understand it all.
--Jessie Tomkins 03:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hey guys, I thought your page was well set out. Some things to think about however are: The length of your paragraphs were in some cases a bit long and the use of jargon didn't help in keeping the reader interested. Perhaps a more simplified, succinct paragraph structure may be helpful? Some images didn't have the correct copyright info. A glossary would be very helpful with terms used throughout your article. But overall a well presented project.
--Samantha Cabrera 01:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)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!
--Julianna Lam 01:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC) great page guys ! the page is nicely organised with a nice mixture of pictures. the page has a logically flow to it and i especially liked the current research part. the variety of examples given made the page very interesting. The content of the text is well thought out. one thing you may want to change is to add a glossary to help readers understand more in depth.
--Joanne Raffel 23:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Great page, there was sufficient information and the pictures made the page more interactive however the images were a bit too small and made it difficult to read the included text. There were a few grammer errors and a glossary would help the reader throughout the page. The applications in research was fairly limited and could use a few more areas. You discussed the advantages of F-PCR but didnt state the disadvantages, this would make that section a comparison. Overall a very good page.
--Paula Ordonez 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Hi group1, Upon first glance at your page it appears well organised with excellent subheadings and lots of pictures and further reading demonstrates a very detailed study of Fluorescent-PCR. The succint and interesting introduction and timeline works very well in keeping the page interesting. However, there are some sentences which are incoherent and contain too much jargon making it difficult to understand what is trying to be said. A glossary would be very useful in this case to clarify some of the more difficult meanings. Furthermore, the section on Principles of Fluorescent-PCR procedures has quite long paragraphs which are difficult to follow. While there are some excellent images, some have to be referenced properly, along with some of the text. All in all this is a great page!
--Erika Unsworth 22:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Great work guys! It looks like a lot of effort has been put into the making of this page! Here are some of the thoughts I had when reviewing your work:
- Great use of pictures to break up the text! (keeps me interested)
- Great structure- flows nicely!
- Make sure to proof-read your work (theres a few grammar mistakes etc. that others have highlighted already)
- Looks like some of the referencing is missing- make sure you check over that e.g. development section.
- With the timeline, maybe you could put the dates in bold to make it more visually appealing? just an idea.
- A glossary could be a nice finishing touch!
--Darren Dizon 22:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Overall a very good page about PCR. I found the headings that you guys used were all appropriate and well thought out. I also found the content clear and concise without waffling on to make the page longer. The diagrams were also very easy to understand and appropriate. If i had to picky and find faults with it i would just say to make sure to reference content AND pictures, and that your comparison of conventional PCR to flourescent PCR is a little bit convoluted. However, i did find this page to be very informative
--z3254509 20:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Hey, the page really has a good flow and the tone of the page is perfect for the audience. Also the layout of the page fits very nicely and the page looks extremely professional. However, it could use more of the following:
- References (it looks a little short)
- A glossary wouldn't go astray
- Check the grammar, it is a little funny in places.
Overall, extremely good page!
--Jae Choi 13:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, Great project page you have made. There's not much things left that i can say.. But here's my opinion.
- It would be a good idea if you add Glossary part.
- Not enough references are provided. Development of PCR part has been covered with only one journal article published in 1992. I don't think this is enough to provide all the information.
Overall, you guys have done a great job. Cheers.
--Jin Lee 11:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hello Group1. Great work! I would say I learnt a lot of things about PCR. Thank you. Intro was clear and I liked comparison against C-PCR section. Here is some of my suggestions that might be useful:
- I found some of images don't have copyright disclosure.please check the copyright information.
- with Development section, there is no reference. please reference it.
- with Reference list I found it is too short for the amount of text in the wiki page.
- with Principles of Fluorescent-PCR Procedures part, it is bit long especially Gel Electrophoresis part is too long...
- add Glossary section
overall, well done!
Firstly, well done group 1. The project looks great, here are some points I thought might be useful: --Vishnnu Shanmugam 04:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- All images should contain a web link to the source and also copyright information.
- Review of the references as there are too few for the amount of text there is. Entire paragraphs should have more than 1 reference.
- Inclusion of a glossary for words like retroviruses , myotonic dystrophy, UV transilluminator.
- Excellent images you created yourself.
- Some more explanation of some of the methods used such as how the gene scanner makes a quantitative analysis.
- Excellent time line, gets straight to the point, succinct!
- Revise grammar.
--Angama Yaquobi 04:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hello guys! Your project seems very interesting and informative because it has given me a lot of key information about PCR. I liked the diagrams and the self-drawn diagrams which communicate with the written component very well. However one of the images does not have any reference and also if you guys break up the paragraphs in the section of comparison against conventional PCR section it would make it very easy to read and attain the meaning. Also I would suggest to include more reference and a glossary but overall well done guys!
--z3252261 07:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 1.. overall all a fantastic piece, i really liked how many different parts you have in the page, really gave me an in depth reiteration and further elaboration of PCR. I would say the biggest problem that i could notice in the text were the grammatical and tense errors as the people before me have said. Here are a few examples:
- final sentence of the introduction could be justifies, not justified
- I didnt really understand this- As it proceed to mid 1990s
- Basic PCR, invented in 1984, generateS,.... or primer molecules WERE known. one of these has to be changed
- This method overcAME the limitation in the basic PCR.
- Anchored PCR emlpoyS,... or BOUND to sequence artificially
- Principles of Fluorescent PCR Procedures- two oligonucleotides primerS (where each primer is complementary...
- complementary strands of DNA helix ARE broken
- primers AND the DNA template strand
- require the temperature to be raiseD TO 72°C
I also think the whole piece could do with more references. Apart from that, sorry if it sounded harsh, i thought it was really good, the content sounded really accurate, and i thought it was really well structured, so congrats on a great piece.
--z3252833 06:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Hi guys! Obviously a lot of research has gone into this, so well done on the effort! I quite like the layout in terms of headings, subheadings and the amount and placement of pictures – there’s not too much colour and not too much white background; it’s well balanced. In terms of things you could perhaps improve, there are a few grammatical typos present, which has been mentioned by people commenting before me. Also as mentioned, but important, is that a few of the pictures (e.g. the second gel electrophoresis picture, on the right-hand side of the page) don’t appear to be cited, or at least there’s no citation or information about them once you click on them, and the student-drawn diagram should have a copyright notice as is outlined on this Wiki. Also, I haven’t learned about fluorescent-PCR before, and whilst very informative the page is dense with text and scientific jargon – often I had to read sentences through a coupe of times to clarify what was being said. Perhaps you could cut down on some text by putting it in table form, rewording some of the more dense sentences and adding all acronyms and definitions of scientific jargon-type words into a glossary? It might make the page a bit less daunting for a reader who knows very little about the technique or its background. But otherwise, keep up the good work!
--z3252005 02:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Group 1 overall your project is well organised and explains your technique appropriately. I do have some minor points which could help improve your assignment. These include:
- I would personally recommend putting up a picture of Kary B. Mullis in the basic PCR timeline section, simply because he has played one of the major roles in PCR development.
- Just make sure to reference your images appropriately. Your student images should have captions and copyright as outlined in the editing basics section of the ANAT3231 cell biology webpage. Also make sure all your images are referenced you guys have missed out on referencing a few of your images (eg. PCR.png, ZMechanism of fluorescence.jpg...).
- I think you guys should put up a glossary to help readers with various knowledge of this technique.
- It would be helpful if you wrote what EDTA was before using this abbreviation.
- I also think you guys should have a few more in-text references.
- There were some small grammatical errors but you guys could just read over this again and fix them up (eg. "Fluorescent probes are oligonucleotides that has a fluorescent dye at the 5' end and a quencher (E.g. Dabcyl or rhodamine) at the 3' end." Has should be have).
The headings and sub-headings used were great, and the comparison between conventional PCR and Fluorescent-PCR was a great idea. I believe you guys have made a great informative page.
Ahh group 1. What can i say that hasn't already been said. What i will say is that this is a very strong project with a large amount of information. One area that i would look at is including more in-text references and more references overall as these are used sparingly compared to the amount of text there is. Also, maybe try and break up the paragraphs by including a table which would work best in the comparison against conventional PCR section.--z3253199 06:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
--Katiana Shaw 04:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Group 1 - Here are my thoughts on your project:
- The introduction and history are very comprehensive. Well done!
- I am not familiar with Fluorescent PCR and found some of the text a bit too detailed and complex for me to gain a good understanding of this technique.
- I like that you include a comparison with conventional PCR but you could maybe format this information in a table so that it is easier to understand.
- Great analysis of applications of this technique overall - perhaps you could include some links to journal papers in this section so those who are interested can follow up on this technique.
- Your diagrams are excellent - just need to reference them as your own diagrams!
Overall a great project! Well done!
--David Williamson 06:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- The outline of headings and subheadings is very clear and logical.
- The many pictures are helpful in understanding. The pictures you guys did yourselves are very impressive!
- The level of depth is good and appropriate for the page.
- The meaning of the first sentence wasn’t immediately clear to me, maybe this could be reworded? Does it mean Genetic expression has become the basis of clinical diagnosis? Or that our ability to measure genetic expression has become the basis of clinical diagnosis?
- The tense is a bit mixed in some sections making it a little hard to read—eg: “Gene amplification accounts for the high sensitivity of PCR (present tense) where single copies of genes could be analysed” (future tense). If “can” was used instead of “could” this would read more smoothly (in my opinion). Or “Basic PCR, invented in 1984, generated large quantities of DNA sequence (past tense) if the DNA sequences of the primer molecules are known” (present tense). This sentence could use “were known” instead of “are known” to make the whole sentence past tense, or “generates” instead of “generated” to make the whole sentence present tense.
- A glossary could be helpful
--Begum Sonmez 11:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 1, here are my views on your project:
- I liked the introduction. It was general to begin with, and the author introduced the technique of PCR without disturbing the flow of the paragraph. Although, I felt that the accompanying photo made no relation to the intro.
- Development of PCR:
- Too much of the information is in paragraph format. I understand some of this info is better kept as it is in paragraphs, but some of it (those with dates) can be put under the ‘Basic PCR Timeline’. Nice work on the timeline.
- There is also a bit of grammatical erros, like: ‘As it proceed to mid 1990s, PCR was used as a diagnostic and screening tool for genetic diseases.’ This is just one of a few mistakes I picked up on, but just read over the section again.
- PLEASE NOTE: The referencing and description of most of the images on the page is not complete or present at all, though I’m sure this will be fixed. Images that are composed by a student, like the ‘Inverse PCR’ image, must be referenced and must include the student number or name of the author.
- Principles of Fluorescent-PCR Procedures:
- The ‘Polymerase Chain Reaction’ image was a great reference for me whilst reading the related text.
- I liked the use of sub-headings under ‘Fluorescent Analysis’, thought is all that information necessary under ‘Gel Electrophoresis’? Great use of pictures though! Try disposing of unnecessary words, and sentences,
- I think Comparison against Conventional PCR was one of my favorites because of its clear structure.
- There is too much text under Identification of Retroviruses. Try to limit the amount of text in this section to 1 paragraph per application.
Overall, I felt that this page was informative and understandable.
--z3256682 10:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, Your project reads well and flows logically. I especially liked the clear diagrams of what is actually happening in the PCR/F-PCR process as well as your text explanation. I didn't feel there were many problems - mainly small ones such as the caption for your picture reading 'Tap DNA Polymerase' while your text refers to it as 'Taq DNA Polymerase' (not sure if that was just a mistake or is a different polymerase altogether?), and also under Myotonic dystrophy section, your first sentence has an error: '..it is also and autosomal dominant disease' (just a very little mistake that's all). Apart from that, I agree with the previous posts about image referencing - that if you illustrated them yourself, you should label them in the Comments section as such, because I think they are quite impressive. Also, I would encourage you to put a Glossary - I understood your project perfectly fine, but there will be students whose science backgrounds vary so they mightn't understand all the terms. Otherwise, very good!
Overall, the project is well organised and structured. I felt like some of it was a bit repepitive (PCR process was explained twice and some images were basically the same). The section on the fluorescent PCR was well done and the applications section was interesting. I would like to have seen a bit more research, with relevant referencing, as at times it felt a bit basic. All in all, it's looking good :) --z3329502 07:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
--z3252340 07:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Your site is very interesting. I learnt alot about PCR which i had not known from previous courses. Referencing of images could be improved. If the image is your own work, copyright them (to protect them so no one can steal them) and state from what image they are based upon. A description of what the image is about would also help - I would click on the image but not know what they were refering to.
--z3269335 07:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Hey guys,
I think you guys have done a great job. Actually I have learnt about Fluorescent-PCR before, however your project let me to know more about Fluorescent-PCR and it is interesting in knowing its applications on current researches. Well done. It is also a nice idea that your group has included sufficient diagrams and some self-drawn diagrams, which help explaining a complex idea. Moreover, it is great to see that most of the diagram include appropriate references. However, maybe you just missed to reference one of them PCR.png. Additionally, if a glossary is included, that may help someone whom haven' t learnt about Fluorescent-PCR, as they may not understand some of the scientific terms.
Overall, you have done a great job. Keep it up :)
--Joseph Chuk 07:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Your project is intersting and I have leanrt a lot about Fluorescent-PCR. The comparison and application parts are very good and clear. Good job! The images are relevant but it seems better to place them all on the right side. I find the principle and procedures part too detailed and complicated, which could be more precise. Overall well done!
--Samantha Cabrera 07:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)hjhkjhkhkhui
Sorry for late reply, I could not get access to this website so doing applications before lab, hopefully will have lots done by then.
See you in lab! --Mari Fushimi 01:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Tom and Mari
Nice work, Tom. But, I will still need two more applications for the PCR to make it three applications in total. Please get most of the assigned tasks completed by tonight. Subsequently, we should improve on the layout and the reference links of the wikipage. Hopefully, we will get a good grading for our page.
Cheers, Clyde --z3178608 22:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Clyde awesome set up of timeline and structure, I am in the process of recapping a brief definiton of F-PCR and conventional PCR (C-PCR) to put before the comparisons. Also I am about to read a whole lot of other articles in bed to get my head around it a bit more, its being a while since biochem days! I'm sorry for replying so late guys, nursing assignments have been hectic but I'm going to solidly work on this for the next couple of days! Over and out.
--Mari Fushimi 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Tom The magnesium is in the buffer and the buffer could be Tris solution. It is added to facilitate the enzymatic activity of the polymerase therefore acting as a cofactor.
Clyde --z3178608 00:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, i've decided to do the timeline for PCR. Also Clyde, is magnesium in the buffer or is it THE buffer? Just wondering, cause you may have the wording wrong. Tom--Thomas Fox 23:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Dr Hill did mention about the deadline during the lab. It is on week 8. And the other groups will be evaluating our wikipage and giving advice for improvement. We have to amend the wikipage accordingly and submit as our final project to be graded.
--z3178608 02:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds great Clyde! I agree that the workload should be managed equally, so it's a team effort, as it should be. btw, when is the project due? Tom--z3187043 02:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Tom and Mari
I was wondering if you are agreeable with the project plan? If everything's fine, we should probably proceed with the contents for each section of the web page. I understand that everyone has their own commitments, so I'm suggesting that we could probably delegate the workload equivalently among us? I'm currently working on the principles of F-PCR in terms of its underlying mechanism. Perhaps, both of you could decide on either the development of PCR or the section on comparison against conventional PCR. For the last section, I think each of us could work on one current application of F-PCR, which makes it three applications in total. Can you let me know your thoughts about this arrangement? I'm truly sorry if I sounded too pressurizing because the deadline is approaching. I am confident that our teamwork would make this project a success with pleasant teamwork experience.
Hope to hear from you soon!
Best regards,Clyde --z3178608 09:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Clyde, the layout and plan for our project looks good, it was along the lines of what i was thinking, which is a good thing. What do you think Bonnie? Don't forget we need to include our student designed figure somewhere, i'm suggesting the fluorescent pcr procedure section, but we should decide as a group. Sorry about the slow reply, bt i was away for most of the break, and recovering from an incident i will tell you about. Also, we could think about splitting up the workload of the project into smaller more easily handled sections ie. the sections below?--z3187043 11:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Tom and Mari
How are you? For this project, I am thinking of including the history, procedures of fluorescent PCR, comparison of conventional PCR with fluorescent PCR, application of F-PCR in molecular biology analysis followed by the conclusion. The procedures would cover the underlying mechanism in the DNA amplification, fluorescence tagging and analysis. The history provides a brief description that begins with the development of conventional PCR, which eventually improvise into F-PCR. In addition, I have applied for article reuse for one of the journal article before we could utilize the material. If there is any suggestions, we could discuss through the discussion board or arrange a meet-up.
Best regards, Clyde
--z3178608 08:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)