Difference between revisions of "Talk:Group 5 Project - Electron Microsopy"

From CellBiology
Line 1: Line 1:
Nice Samanatha, i went through as well with microsoft word and fixed a few that were left over, so thats good that we're double checked.. Im adding some links atfer the subheading like you did for cryofixation. Nice additions to the glossary, haha how did i not think to put in SEM and TEM, so stupid. Im going to try and add a better photo instead of the breast cancer pic and all should be well. Emily, dw i feel like i didnt do enough before and as long as we do well as a group thats all that matters. --[[User:Z3252261|Dougall Norris]] 03:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever fixed up my references. i feel so bad cos i only had to do a couple of changes and you guys have done so much!!!! but all the changes look awesome. --[[User:Z3252340|Emily Wong]] 02:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever fixed up my references. i feel so bad cos i only had to do a couple of changes and you guys have done so much!!!! but all the changes look awesome. --[[User:Z3252340|Emily Wong]] 02:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:54, 19 May 2010

Nice Samanatha, i went through as well with microsoft word and fixed a few that were left over, so thats good that we're double checked.. Im adding some links atfer the subheading like you did for cryofixation. Nice additions to the glossary, haha how did i not think to put in SEM and TEM, so stupid. Im going to try and add a better photo instead of the breast cancer pic and all should be well. Emily, dw i feel like i didnt do enough before and as long as we do well as a group thats all that matters. --Dougall Norris 03:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed up my references. i feel so bad cos i only had to do a couple of changes and you guys have done so much!!!! but all the changes look awesome. --Emily Wong 02:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I had my family read through the page to weed out typos last night, so I fixed a few things here and there until everything looked neat and made sense to everyone who read it. I also added one line back into the intro, because by taking it out we removed what SEM and TEM stood for, which confused everyone. I've added polepiece to the glossary with some other words, and added the cryo stuff with a link to the paper. --z3252833 23:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dougall but I think I got the referencing! Finally. I've gone through the references and conglomerated all the ones that were the same (there are still a few separate references to the book by Hunter, but that's 'cause they have different page references). I'm going to add a bit on the new cryo-fixation technique tonight, and/or tomorrow morning. I haven't found anything helpful on describing the breast cancer cells so far, but I'll keep looking..--z3252833 12:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC).

Do u want me to do the remaining refs? The glossary and external links are done please guys add them it if i missed anything or you have something interesting. I also couldnt find the definition of polepiece. Im done for today, ill touch up a few last things tommorrow. Samantha thanks heaps for looking for the descriptions, if u find something on the breast cancer cells hook me up. if i cant find anything im gonna have to get a new pic.--Dougall Norris 11:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the double ref thing I tried! It worked the first time, but after that it was just scary. I hope you have more luck than I did. <http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/mmi/stannard/papillo.html> Try here for the papillioma virus description. I haven't found much for the breast cancer cells, though. I'll keep looking. --z3252833 10:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OOH OOH!! i also just figure out the double ref thingy [1]. Thereafter, the same footnote may be used multiple times by adding [1]

eg. for < ref >Dubochet, J., Adrian, M., C.......... etc< /ref >

i made it < ref name="Dub">Dubochet, J., Adrian, M., C......< /ref >....

and the next time i used it, just put < ref name="Dub"/>. I put spaces in around the ref part so it wouldnt register, so u could see it.

That might not make it easy so look under the heading 'Footnotes' on [1] --Dougall Norris 08:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol the picture descriptions look crazy, if that isnt enough info i dont know what is, as for my two images i have to get better descriptions of them or just better images altogether. ill look into it now. looks like im having a late 1.--Dougall Norris 07:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh cool, if it hasnt been implemented yet, i would put it under future applications, if not as an extra part under cryo-fixation.. nice though--Dougall Norris 07:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I'm going to proofread the page tonight to get rid of typos, and I'm working on descriptions of all our pictures, too. Tell me what you think. Also, I found something about new cryo-fixation techniques - should I put it under a new section for "research using the EM" or under "cryo-fixation"?--z3252833 04:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah thats a good point about the intro, i think your improvement sounds awesome, so ill put it on the page. Cool?

Yeah, i didnt think a glossary needed refs, just didnt want to screw it up, i should be able to get started today.

I only really have the references that i used for future applications, so ill have to look for more links.

ill also try to fix the double references that i did. sounds like were almost finished a pretty solid assignment though, hooray--Dougall Norris 01:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Yeah, Dougall, I like your additions to the intro, and I reckon we can get rid of that last part. It is repetitive, I just wanted to pad out the intro a bit at the time and wasn't sure what to put. The only thing I would say is that this is a cell bio course, so we really should be overemphasising the use in the field of cell biology rather than semiconductors and forensics. Here's my take on it; feel free to revise/alter anything:

One of the most important techniques in cell biology, possibly the most important, is electron microscopy as it allows for the analysis of cells, organelles, molecules and particles that are too small to be seen with the naked eye. Using an accelerated beam of electrons which has a much smaller wavelength than light and a number of electromagnetic 'lenses', an image with much greater resolution can be obtained, permitting a more in-depth analysis of the specimen.

Electron microscopes have permitted cell biologists to see cells and cell components with much greater resolution than light microscopes, providing insight into cell structure and function that would have previously been impossible. The analysis of microstructures helps to differentiate between minute elements of the specimen being investigated and also provides information about the integrity of a structure. The electron microscope has also proven important in materials research, environmental forensic investigations, and the semiconductor industry.

As for the glossary... a definition is a definition; if we know it and can write it from knowledge would that be classified as public knowledge? I've never seen a referenced glossary before. I don't think it should be in-text referenced, but we should include sources of definitions in the reference list, definitey. I had a *lot* of trouble trying to make that condense-repeated-referencing thing work. I had success with one reference, but after that it mostly just kept messing up the page until I had to actually remove references to get the page back in order! Am I just technologically demented? Has anyone else had more luck?

Also - should we add links to an brief summaries of recent developments made using the EM? Becuase I think that would be good. Use of linking and making sure we include recent developments and all.

I disagree with moving the pictures, too, and with rewriting the history. I think it flows chronologically. I fixed up the diagrams and the tabling in the "How it Works" section, and I did a bit of work on all the pictures in it, too. --z3252833 09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys i really think our intro needs a bit of work, tell me what u think, u can obviously add to it --Dougall Norris 02:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the most important techniques in cell biology, possibly the most important, is electron microscopy as it allows for the analysis of cells, organelles, molecules and particles that are too small to be seen with the naked eye. Using electrons, which have a much smaller wavelength than light, an image of much higher resolution can be obtained, permitting a much greater analysis of the specimen. I think some more info of how it works could be put here

Electron microscopes have permitted cell biologists to see cells and cell components with much greater resolution than light microscopes, providing an insight into cell structure and function, as well as playing an important role in the semiconductor industry, materials research and environmental forensic investigations. The analysis of microstructures helps to differentiate particles, which has many applications, and also provides information about the integrity of a structure.

I dont think we need this bit, it sounds like a speech and i feel like people can figure that out from the contents: This page will provide an overview of how the two major types of electron microscope - the transmission electron microscope (TEM) and the scanning electron microscope (SEM) - work, followed by a brief history and then a discussion of the current and future uses of the microscope.

Changes made based on peer evaluation:

  • Placed History section before how it works --Emily Wong 22:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed headings of applications--Dougall Norris 13:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

--Dougall Norris 11:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Hey guys, here are my ideas:

- Fix Headings of applications, will do.

- Check grammar, will do.

- Maybe compress the how it works section in terms of spacing?

- I disagree with the comment that its better to have all the pictures on one side.

- History should be before how it works, i think that makes sense

- A few people said a better intro would help, and Darren Dizon said to include some uses of the electron microscope in the into, so i can add to that.

- Thanks to Erika for providing the link to the page that will fix our double reference problem

- It was mentioned that the history section didnt really flow, and that it would be better as a timeline, im not sure if that matters, especially, when theres a general progression through the pioneers of EM, so i think thats fine, you guys?

- Ill definately get onto doing the glossary, does it need to be referenced?

Summary of Comments:

- Move ‘History’ to after 'Introduction' and before ‘How It Works’

- Clearly label the schematics as student-drawn and add copyright notice (fixed)--z3252833 07:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

- Clean up references so they don’t appear more than once in the list (tried to do!)

- Inclusion of glossary for application section (and thanks again Dougall)

- Bigger heading current and future applications (thanks Dougall)

- Add more to introduction (define 'electron microscope' and give more information) (working on it)

- Link to current papers and link to useful sites and research

- Move microscope comparisons into a table (fixed)

- Fix diagrams and copyright (fixed; guys, do you think it's better now?)

--z3252833 07:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC) And updated --z3252833 09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow group members! Okay, so we have some things to fix. Dougall, do you want to make a glossary of terms you used and make sure all the headings match up in your section? And Emily, do you want to move history in front of how it works? And I'll fix the drawn diagrams and put the microscope comparison in a table. And we should all proofread. Is that okay? --z3252833 08:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

--Shoahaib Karimi 07:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Good work you could inlcude some colourful pictures instead of the boring black images, but you do really explain it reallly well, you could include a glossary to make sure words can be quickly found rather than reading to understand, you have a great number of references.

--Ozgur Tuna 05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Good work guys, your page has a nice layout and it is nice to see there is a great use of pictures with good format and referencing. Comparison between TEM and SEM by using a table is a great idea. Also the Uses at UNSW and section is a great touch as it is nice to see the applications in UNSW.

A few points to improve:

  • Glossary can be added as readers will need definitions for better understanding.
  • History section can be relocated and placed just after Intro.

--Mark Hill 04:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Lab 8 Assessment - 24 student reviews.

--Mari Fushimi 04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hi group 5-here is my feedback:

  • For a subject that I would normally find really boring it was a great read!
  • Layout-history I thought could go further up the page; headings-in applications could be more obvious, at first glance subheadings are not noticeable; tables and diagrams-great use of these and balanced throughout page; I love how you put in a UNSW section, it gives it a homely touch that is easy to relate to!glossary-needs one
  • References-Very thorough amount and style of referencing

--Jessie Tomkins 03:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Group 5, I really like how easy to read this page is. It is well set out and the content is not too full of jargon so those without a science background could certainly comprehend what was being written about. I also really liked the section about how it is being used at UNSW. A few things to think about:

  • Adding a glossary
  • Putting the History section after your introduction
  • Working a bit more on your introduction

But overall great work!

--Erika Unsworth 03:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hey group 5, well done! A lot of effort has obviously been made to make this page! Here are a few of my thoughts:

  • There's a section on wikipedia help that explains how to make a reference list so that the same resource doesn't come up more than once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents
  • A glossary might be a nice finishing touch
  • Great how you applied it to efforts at unsw! Very unique!
  • Great use of formatting, pictures and tables
  • Easy to comprehend content

--Paula Ordonez 02:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hi group 5, This is a great page, I found it easy to read as it was succinct and to the point, greatly increasing my understanding. I especially liked the Comparing Transmission electron microscrope and the scanning electron microscope! A few things you could improve on would be adding some references, a glossary would be helpful, also perhaps a clearler, more detailed introduction to enlighten readers on what the rest of the page will talk about. Overall great job! with particular high points to the application section and creative idea as to how electron microscropy is used at UNSW.

--Samantha Cabrera 01:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I think more headings would help. Excellent reference list. Quantity of images - good!

--Julianna Lam 01:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) the introduction is too short, would like it to have a few more sentences. the use of pictures and the table comparing the two is amazing, made the page more interesting. the 'how it works' bit is written very well, content was interesting and easy to understand. i think the history section should go under the introduction and before the 'how it works bit'. overall, great page !

--Joanne Raffel 01:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Your wiki page was rather long, I think that was due to the spacing of each section and made the page difficult to read and makes the information look scarce. The how it works section is too spaced out and doesnt allow a consistent flow. The comparison table needs to be refined under better topics as it just looked like a table of information rather than a comparison. The history section was very thorough however the use of dot points too away from the focus of the subheadings and there were also a few grammer errors. Otherwise nice work.

--Darren Dizon 22:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Good work. Information was clear and concise and well referenced. Choice of pictures really added to the content as well. Only advice is to think about the rewriting the intro. Personally, i like to be able to read the Intro of a wiki page and already have somewhat of an idea in the processes involved and some uses, but with that said it is still a good page! peace out

--Thomas Fox 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Great job on your project page. Layout out is great, images good, and the table of comparison excellent idea. Also the refs are of good quantity. Maybe add a glossary for extra understanding of topic, but nice and brief and easy to understand overall, good job.

--z3254509 21:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good job, it was really nice to see all the pictures were properly referneced and the formatting of the page looked really good. Some points for improvement:

  • Perhaps adding a glossary section?
  • Relocating the history part further up the page.

--z3269335 11:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Excellent work has been demonstrated:

  • Lots of colourful, properly cited diagrams and pictures.
  • It is a good idea that a table is used to compare and contrast Transmission Electron Microscope and Scanning Microscope.

Some points to improve your projects are:

  • Did you draw the pictures TEM Diagram.jpg and SEM Diagram.jpg? If yes, it would be nice to indicate that they are "self-drawn diagrams" under the comment of the image. If no, it would be nice a proper reference is included.
  • If necessary, a glossary could be included at the end of the project too.

Nice group 5. The project looks like you’ve put a lot of effort, here are some points I thought might be useful: --Vishnnu Shanmugam 03:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The images are very well referenced with both the source ( link form) and copyright information. Good job!
  • References are terrific as there is sufficient amount of referenced for the amount of text. Entire paragraphs have in text references. Well done.
  • Inclusion of a glossary for words like, gap junctions , cell hybridisation and crystallography.
  • Try to better structure the timeline in terms of flow, the timeline should not really be divided under subheadings. It should also only include major historical landmarks of electron microscopy.
  • Like the how you have separated and compared trasnsmission and scanning electron microscopy.
  • Try to provide some links to current research sources such as laboratories and/or researchers to complement the future applications section.

--Jin Lee 12:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Hello Group 5~ Great work! this page was very informative about EM and uses at UNSW bit was very interesting.

Here is some of my suggestions:

  • all the images should hold the copyright permission unless it's student drawn diagram.
  • inclusion of Glossary might be helpful.
  • may be relocate the History part after the intro.
  • divide into current and future part into separate subheadings.

Overall, Well done!

--Jae Choi 12:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, Great project you have made. I like the part Uses at UNSW. It's briliant. Did you guys draw the simplified schematic drawing of transmission electron microscope and another one for scanning electron microscope? If you didn't it you need to provide references for those. Cheers.

--z3178608 11:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hello Group 5

This project is excellent and solidify my understanding about electron microscope through the elaboration of the principle of microscopic imaging.

These are several points in my mind:

  • Concise introduction that gives a brief information about the contents covered in the web-page.
  • Detailed schematic diagram as the illustration.
  • Comprehensive information on how the electron microscope works.
  • Useful comparison between the TEM and SEM and appropriate use of the table.
  • History of the development seems a bit lengthy.
  • Wide applications of electron microscope is covered.

--Joseph Chuk 07:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Your project is intersting and I have leanrt a lot about electron microscopy. The advantages and disadvantages are compared clearly by a table. The applications are also very clear and precise with subheadings. Good job! I think it seems better to place all the images on the right side for better reading. Overall well done!

--Angama Yaquobi 06:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Hi guys, here are my thoughts about your wonderful project; First of all I just loved reading thru your webpage, a great intro very precise, great idea of using a table for the comparison of TEM and SEM. The history was well written also great work for referencing section how it corresponds to the in-text citation. If you add some links to papers or journals under applications it will help those readers who want to know further about a particular research field.

--David Williamson 03:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Really good work guys.

  • The intro reads very well but I wonder if you could also summarise in a sentence in there what an electron microscope actually is? If you’re anything like me, often when you go to a Wikipedia page you just read the first sentence to get a basic idea of what a word might mean.
  • If those microscope schematics are by you guys they’re really good! But I think you might need to make it a bit more obvious they’re your own work or he might penalise you...
  • I really like the way the history is done- with the bold headings giving a nice summary of the whole process.
  • The comparison table between TEM and SEM is very effective- a great way of showing both similarities and differences.
  • Applications are well done with really clear layout and good examples.
  • The “uses at UNSW” is a great idea- relating the topic to the page’s audience.
  • Good collection of references, but some of the references appear a few times... I’m not sure if this is something to do with the wiki system because I’ve seen this a couple of times but it would be good if it could be consolidated.

--z3252005 07:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 5. This project was well written and had a good flow but in my opinion and as mentioned in previous posts that the history section should come before the how it works section. The introduction was clear, concise and includes an outline of the page which is very good. I believe TEM Diagram.jpg and SEM Diagram.jpg are student drawn diagrams, but they are not referenced. You should check the editing basics section on the website to find out what information to include with your diagram. I have to add that the diagrams are very impressive. The images that were used related to the section in which they were set. Overall this project was well put together. Well done.

--Begum Sonmez 11:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Hello Group 5. Loved this page overall, I have to say: Nice Work!

  • Excellent Introduction. It was short, precise about the aim of the project, and had a flow to it. Nice and general.
  • The differences between LM and EM under ‘How It Works’ was a good idea. Also, I liked the table for comparing TEM and SEM. It was very helpful.
  • The images used on this page corresponded to their text well, and some aided my understanding of the information.
  • The structure of the History section is a tick from me.
  • Loved the UNSW bit at the end, as well as the referencing list and how it links to the corresponding texts throughout the page.

As you can tell, I really can’t find anything on this page that I disagreed with, or that I found inappropriate. Overall, this page was well researched, well covered, and well structured.

hey guys. this project is very good. it manages to present the information in a concise and easy format for a technique which could easily get complex and difficult to understand. the references are good but i would be more explicit about the schematics being hand drawn because i had to read your discussion to determine that. all the suggestions i was going to offer have already been done below.--z3253199 06:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

--Katiana Shaw 05:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 5 - Here are some thoughts:

  • The outline of the technique is very easy to understand which is great and the student drawings are fantastic.
  • The history could maybe come before the explanation of how the electron microscope works; I personally think it would flow better but I think that's fairly minor.
  • I like how you have related applications to UNSW
  • Under applications you could maybe include some links to papers or journals which outline how the electron microscope has been used in specific research, just for those who are interested and want to research further.

Overall, it is a great project. Really informative and easy to understand with relevant pictures. Good work!

--z3256682 07:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Hi,

Great work, just a few suggestions:

A table or figure outlining the information you've given as "1. has a light source 2. etc.." bit might be better in showing your reader how microscopy has progressed from light to electron, and helps break up the text a bit, but that depends on your planning, so ignore my comment if neccessary.

Also I don't see any student-drawn diagram/figures unless the simplified schematics are student-drawn (which by the way are quite good and look really professional), however if indeed they are student-drawn, you need to make this clear for subsequent reviewers.

A Glossary may be needed, however personally, I understood it comfortably and you explained it well within the text.

Overall really good work especially current/future uses, interesting to report on local UNSW uses, just requires really minor adjustments.

Great work on the project so far! The student pictures are really good, as is the written content and referencing. My critism only is that that history section might fit better before the section on how it all works, but that's just my take. Definately one of the better ones I've read so far :) --z3329502 08:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, we should probably decide whether were going to cover all types of electron microscopy (EM) or just one (eg. Scanning Electron Micrograph or Reflection Electron Micrograph). I think we should cover all, and im looking for resources on EM tonight.--Dougall Norris 06:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. What do we want to cover about each EM - history, uses, what each is, how they work, etc. This is the wiki page for EM Electron Microscope. --z3252340 06:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we should cover Transmission Electron Microscopy? I guess we will if we decide to do all types of electron microscopy, which I think might be a good idea. TEM pictures are always being used in the lectures.The Wikipedia entry is [2]. And yes, I think we need to cover history, how it works, uses etc. Maybe also touch on what kind of things EM helped discover? On another note, I draw, so if we need our own diagrams drawn up I can do that. --z3252833 02:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So Mark just said to look at how they work, their history and what they are currently used for. Apparently there are new cryofixation and immunochemical techniques.--z3252833 05:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah for all of the above, mark said its better that we gather research and it will begin to take shape.--z3252261 06:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats good. i'm gonna see what sort of research i can find on EM --Emily Wong 06:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok im gonna start here [3]--z3252261 06:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey all. So for now, do we want to focus on Transmission Electron Microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy? They seem to be the major ones. And I suggest we break it down into the major categories we need to address - history, how they work and current/future uses. If you don't mind, can I do how they work? I draw, so I can incorporate diagrams (since we have to draw some of our own diagrams) into that. --z3252833 06:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind doing history --Emily Wong 06:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah for sure, that sounds awesome --Dougall Norris 06:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so we've changed the headings around some more so things make more sense - so at the moment I'm doing what the different microscopes are and how they work, and Emily's offered to do history and the introduction, so Dougall, is it okay if you do current/future uses and the kinds of microscopes at UNSW right now? --z3252833 06:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, if i come across resources that look good for your areas ill post them too --Dougall Norris 06:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Emily, what you've done is awesome. I'm sorry it's taking me so long to put up my part; I promise I've got the information, I've just had a stupid crazy time of late. I've finally got time tomorrow so I should have my all my stuff up then, and it will most definitely be done by the weekend. And Dougall, I just looked and you're writing stuff, so yay for you too. --z3252833 04:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, guys, who's doing the introduction? --z3252833 04:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dougall, for your current and future uses I think there's some new kinds of fixation that have been developed that can help improve the image; I'm not sure but I think it was advances in cryo-fixation. Thought it might help. --z3252833 11:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know guys, I'm drawing the diagrams of the TEM and SEM and I'll have them up on Saturday. And I emailed a guy to get permission to use his information, and he sent me back links to sites where he knows there are science public domain pictures: <http://media.nih.gov/imagebank/index.asp> and here <http://nix.nasa.gov/>. --z3252833 12:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've found some sites that have public domain images.

<http://phil.cdc.gov/phil/home.asp> this is the CDC website - although a medical website with photos of diseases there are TEM and SEM images.

Hey, really sorry i havent looked at the discussion page for a few days, was caught up in the research. I started doing everything bit by bit in wiki, but it got frustrating, so i did it in word instead and ill upload it with the references all at once. I had a crazy week as well, but im almost finished and i should get it posted tonight or tommorrow. I havent come across the new fixation but ill look into it now, thanks a lot for that. If i have time ill also add to the introduction.--Dougall Norris 05:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No probs Dougall. -z3252833

Still haven't finished tonight, but it will be done tomorrow. Should i also draw something, because i have had some cool diagrams in non-referable articles that would go well with my parts, ill add other images as well when ive finished writing.--Dougall Norris 15:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to draw, go for it. I've drawn schematics of the microscopes, but I'm thinking more drawings wouldn't go amiss. --z3252833 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. 1.0 1.1 details of the citation