Talk:Otic vesicle

Hello, as part of a Wikipedia assignment for Saint Louis University, I may make improvements to this article. Here are a list of references I have found that I plan to incorporate. I may add more articles later if I happen across any.

1 Chatterjee S, Krausl P, Lufkin T: A symphony of inner ear developmental control genes. BMC Genet 2010, 11:68 doi:10.1186/1471-2156-11-68

2 Noramly, S. and Grainger, R. M. (2002), Determination of the embryonic inner ear. J. Neurobiol., 53: 100–128. doi: 10.1002/neu.10131

3 Appler JM, Goodrich LV. Connecting the ear to the brain: molecular mechanisms of auditory circuit assembly. Progress in neurobiology. 2011;93(4):488-508. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.01.004.

4 Freyer L, Aggarwal V, Morrow BE. Dual embryonic origin of the mammalian otic vesicle forming the inner ear. Development (Cambridge, England). 2011;138(24):5403-5414. doi:10.1242/dev.069849.

Biolprof Ayebeesung (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I will be continuing to make changes on this article over the next several weeks as part of a Graduate course at Saint Louis University. Ayebeesung (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mmilldev (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC):

• Why is auditory vesicle italicized in first line?

• maybe it’s a good idea to link “inner ear”?

• link “membranous labyrinth” the first time it is mentioned rather than the second.

• I think it will still work if you split this sentence in two: “When the mouth of the auditory pit is closed, a shut sac is formed; from it the epithelial lining of the membranous labyrinth is derived.” → “When the mouth of the auditory pit is closed, a shut sac is formed. The epithelial lining of the membranous labyrinth is thus derived from the shut sac.” (something like that)

• your “vestibular” link leads to something else about university exams

• There may be a way to link Bmp, Wnt and Pax to the related pages rather than the index page?

• Maybe make a distinction between the “middle part of the otic vesicle” and the “central part of the otic vesicle”

• Try to reword this:

“This subdivision is effected by a fold which extends deeply into the proximal part of the ductus endolymphaticus. The result being the utricle and saccule can now communicate with each other by means of a Y-shaped canal.” → “This subdivision results from a fold, which extends deeply into the proximal part of the ductus endolymphaticus. This fold allows for communication between the utricle and saccule by means of a Y-shaped canal.” (It may be helpful to briefly define “ductus endolymphaticus” because there is no other page to link it.)

• is “parcellation” another word for compartmentalizing?

• more pictures/diagrams like the Figure 1 in your second source are always helpful for visualization if you can find them.

• Cite your source at the end of the last sentence using that source instead of after the first sentence. (Unless there is some other in-text citation rule for Wikipedia that I don’t know about?)

• In your second source in your reference list, the colon after the author’s names should be a period.

Woah, ear development is so complex—very interesting! Great work! Mmilldev (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! I tried to fix everything that you had suggested. Ayebeesung (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cdxaam

• Some of the links are linked to creating a new article page. Some articles may be under different names. For example, I changed fgf since the article was under Fibroblast growth factor. Consider linking the unlinked transcription factors in the intro, or perhaps just link to the homeobox article.
  • I didn't know how to do that, until I saw how you edited it. Thanks for setting up the example! I believe I have fixed all of them now.
• The second paragraph of the intro requires citations for support.
  • Thank you! I missed that, and have made appropriate citation changes!
• Phrasing of "Fgf3 and Fgf10 were suggested..." should use "is" instead of were. Consider adding an extra source to support that it is a general consensus of the field and not just one team's hypothesis.
  • Fixed this too.
• Consider citing further support for the "Divisions and Fates" section. Specifically the second paragraph.
  • Most of this came from one paper that had quite a big of information on this. I'll continue to look for more in the meantime, though

Overall, a very strong article. The images contribute to the article as a whole and the language is concise and easy to read. Cdxaam (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! 128.252.11.235 (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)