Talk:Myogenesis

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Myogenesis is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Anatomy: Embryology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to embryology.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Boston College/Developmental Biology (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Assignment

As of April 4th, 2013, we have added sections in myogenesis overview, sketal muscle myogenesis, muscle fusion, protein synthesis and actin heterogeneity in myogenesis, and myogenesis research techniques.

TheRealTPng (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC) DrLinguini (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC) TheRealTPng (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC) TheRealTPng (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Terrypeng (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Paultesoriero9 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC) DrLinguini (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Edits

 Was wondering about my bold added in the opening statement Myogenesis is the formation of muscular tissue, particularly during embryonic development :  This is the only line in the whole article I have read so I don't know is there an explanation that explains any degree shift away from the term Myogenesis?

--208.87.237.201 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about halfway through the article now, but I wanted to get some comments to you now! What I've read has been great so far! SO much content, great pictures, really wonderful work! I cleaned up a few things, added links here and there.

One of my initial questions is about the sentence that ends every paragraph - "Each stage has various associated genetic factors without which will result in muscular defects." First of all, the fact that it concludes every paragraph is redundant, and I think the language is not completely clear. I wanted to point this out so you could make your own call about this. I would suggest: "Each stage has various associated genetic factors, the lack of which would result in muscular defects." Have that or something like it right under myogenesis overview/before the stages, and I think that would be sufficient.

For your intro paragraph, I think there could be a better balance between information that is an overview and detailed information. More specifically, I wanted to know a bit more about the role of the fibronectin, but I think the bits of information about the myoblasts and their similarities across species and the part about steroids regulating myogenesis were too specific and could be included in the main body of the article. Other info to potentially add: how do MEFs promote myogenesis?

The stages table was a good addition - helpful and nice visually.

I'll finish editing later today; marvelous job! --N1424 (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second Round of Edits The last sentence in the first paragraph of determination doesn't really make sense - are you saying mutations cause associated genetic factors to adopt other phenotypes? Would eliminating the word 'With' solve the problem? Otherwise, the article is still quite great and very informative. In terms of my own editing, I made a couple small spelling changes and I added wikilinks! I'll continue to watch your article as you finish it, but great work so far! --N1424 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third Peer Editor Hey guys! Great job with uploading pictures. Also, good job on the organization of your topic into subsections -especially with the use of a table. The last section with techniques to study differentiation in myogenesis was a nice touch.

A critique that I have is that your jargon may be too difficult for the layperson. For example, what is heterogeneity? Another example is "during embryogenesis, the dermomyotome and/or myotome in the somites contain the myogenic progentior cells that will evolve into the prospective skeletal muscle." If the reader is not a very scientifically savvy person, then half the words in this sentence will not make sense. Then you'll lose your reader.

Moreover, it's awesome how detailed you were in describing mutations and the subsequent problems. However, I think focusing on what needs to go right is important as well. For example, Pax3 and c-met are required for delamination. First of, what does delamination have to do with myogenesis (what goal does it achieve)? Even simply stating that it is a process of cellular migration would be good (I think!).

As for some changes I've made, I tweaked some grammar issues (not really issues, but I can't think of another word right now). For example, keeping the article in the present tense seems to be inconsistent. Anyways, this is not really a big deal but thought I'd let you know. I've also added some links as well, but I think some paragraphs need more.

Additionally, I think you're missing a reference for your last "techniques" section.

Overall, you guys did a great job and should be proud of your work! Developmentalbio (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Peer Editor

This article has turned out great. I actually remember viewing this particular Wikipedia page for a cell biology class a year ago and being disappointed with the amount of information they had. The pictures added are of great addition and I really comment you guys for finding (and securing) great images that really relate. One thing I would say about the images is to maybe restruction the order, I notice most Wikipedia pages tend to say ‘disease’ related images until the end so for the waardenburg syndrome I would maybe move that or rearrange that to the bottom of the page.

Further on formatting, it seems that the opening above the table of contents could be a little bit more concise on the amount and type of information it presents. it goes pretty deep into the topic i perceive, specifically in describing the stages. Maybe clumping some onf those into one paragraph would be more suitable. Another thing I might have changed is there are a lot of links and a lot of red links. For the too many links, wiki formatting dictates that only the first time something is mentioned that you would link it out. As for the red links I know they are allowed but usually not to this extent, also the same red links appear multiple times so that number would want to be dwiddled down.

Other than some formatting gripe I feel this page came together really nicely, all the information provided is concise enough for a wiki page and descriptive enough to be useful. Great job guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itelewoda (talk • contribs) 18:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

more edits

Definitely need many more in line citations. See what you can do. Hakeleh (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)hakel[reply]