User talk:Dugalmaguire/sandbox
Unit 8/9 wiki assignment
[edit]Hi Jason, I see that you've done quite a bit of work to flesh out the references and add the major points to emphasize from these references. How would you like to carve up the work for Units 8 and 9? It looks like by next Thur (4 Apr) that we're expected to have developed about 8-10 paragraphs of content. Do you have a preference on the parts of the outline that you'd like to do? I will have to travel out of town this weekend, but plan on crafting sections before I leave and while I'm on the plane. Cheers, Dave Davidwhanks (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Dave, I've been trying get bits in here and there. I don't have a particular preference, although I admit i think the biochemistry is the most interesting... If you want, we can continue to move information from the references to the outline as it's acquired, get a little more content to work with, then we could split up the finish work? Dugalmaguire (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Dave, I got in a bit of a zone there and added some more structured paragraphs. I've also moved the references up from the potential list to inline. They are named (the first authors names) so are reusable without pasting in the whole reference again. The chemistry, biology and history sections are still lacking, but i think we'll probably be filling them out over the rest of the semester. Thanks. Dugalmaguire (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jason, thanks for all the good work you've been doing. I've been doing some work on the side looking up items, particularly the historical stuff. I'll start putting pen to paper this evening. My internet connectivity has been really spotty lately; my goal is to post the remaining pieces by Wed night in case it's down Thur evening when everything is due. I figure I'd focus tonight on the history section, and the structure section which is straight-forward. Some of the historical stuff I've found also has some good info that will help with the biology section. Best, Dave Davidwhanks (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Dave, alright, it looks like we've got a very substantial first contribution. I really like the history section. I don't know about you, but I think maybe a couple of re-reads and maybe some touch ups here and there and we're ready to go. Fantastic! Dugalmaguire (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Dave, was just re-reading everything, and I can't really come up with any substantial changes. I think it's a dang fine first go. I'm good as is. Dugalmaguire (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jason, I feel pretty good about how it looks, too. The only sections I feel that I should take a stab at still are the ones relating to biological significance, as well as fleshing out some of the history piece. I figure that I'll work on one this evening and the other tomorrow night (Wed). In the history section, I was able to find good early info and more recent info, but not much in between. Also after I uploaded it last night, I realized that some of the names I indicate as having discovered this or that might be inaccurate; instead, their publishings were referenced when citing that a certain discovery was made. I'm afraid that they may not have discovered something per se, only that they were a primary source in discussing the discovery. Thus, I'll take out citations of individual people for the later discoveries unless I know for sure that they were involved in discovery. Also, did we want to transition the work to the cyclic nucleotide page at this point? I guess we'll also need to post a brief progress report on our group page. Easy enough to do by Thur evening. Cheers, Dave Davidwhanks (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Dave, I wouldn't worry to much about additional info, you seem to have a pretty good amount there already. I'm happy with moving it to the main page. Do you want to do that after you're happy with your text? I'll start to post a progress report on our group page Dugalmaguire (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jason, sounds good. We always have additional time to fine-tune where needed. I'll start the process of moving it over tonight; I'm guessing it's a simple copy and paste? I'll look at making sure we keep what's already there that we might not capture (the picture at a minimum). Davidwhanks (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Dave, I wouldn't worry to much about additional info, you seem to have a pretty good amount there already. I'm happy with moving it to the main page. Do you want to do that after you're happy with your text? I'll start to post a progress report on our group page Dugalmaguire (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jason, I feel pretty good about how it looks, too. The only sections I feel that I should take a stab at still are the ones relating to biological significance, as well as fleshing out some of the history piece. I figure that I'll work on one this evening and the other tomorrow night (Wed). In the history section, I was able to find good early info and more recent info, but not much in between. Also after I uploaded it last night, I realized that some of the names I indicate as having discovered this or that might be inaccurate; instead, their publishings were referenced when citing that a certain discovery was made. I'm afraid that they may not have discovered something per se, only that they were a primary source in discussing the discovery. Thus, I'll take out citations of individual people for the later discoveries unless I know for sure that they were involved in discovery. Also, did we want to transition the work to the cyclic nucleotide page at this point? I guess we'll also need to post a brief progress report on our group page. Easy enough to do by Thur evening. Cheers, Dave Davidwhanks (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Dave, was just re-reading everything, and I can't really come up with any substantial changes. I think it's a dang fine first go. I'm good as is. Dugalmaguire (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Dave, alright, it looks like we've got a very substantial first contribution. I really like the history section. I don't know about you, but I think maybe a couple of re-reads and maybe some touch ups here and there and we're ready to go. Fantastic! Dugalmaguire (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jason, thanks for all the good work you've been doing. I've been doing some work on the side looking up items, particularly the historical stuff. I'll start putting pen to paper this evening. My internet connectivity has been really spotty lately; my goal is to post the remaining pieces by Wed night in case it's down Thur evening when everything is due. I figure I'd focus tonight on the history section, and the structure section which is straight-forward. Some of the historical stuff I've found also has some good info that will help with the biology section. Best, Dave Davidwhanks (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Dave, I got in a bit of a zone there and added some more structured paragraphs. I've also moved the references up from the potential list to inline. They are named (the first authors names) so are reusable without pasting in the whole reference again. The chemistry, biology and history sections are still lacking, but i think we'll probably be filling them out over the rest of the semester. Thanks. Dugalmaguire (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)