Wikipedia talk:USEP/Courses/JHU MolBio Ogg 2013/Group 81B

Reflist vs reflist?

Hello both of you, Martin here from your class saying hello and noticing how you were able to have 2 sets of references by using reflist without a capital and Reflist with a capital. I wonder if that doesn't cause trouble later? I know it's just for practice, but I had thought about that a couple of weeks ago, and wondered about it. Ciao MartinLubell (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I don't think it matters if there is a capital for the "R" in Reflist since it appears that the end result is the same. I would double-check with Dr. Ogg to be sure, though. Hope this helps. Have a great day! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized that they are the same list. Ciao MartinLubell (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Martin! My understanding was that each member of the group is supposed to have their own initial assessments of an article under his/her username (which you have - looks nice). Also, each member is supposed to have their own references under their own username section. I see that you have one "citations" section, but I understood that each member is supposed to have their own reference section (under username)since this is a practice round (I assume for the real project there will only be one reference section). However, I can easily differentiate which citations go with which article assessment on your Project page. Maybe that will be just fine for the assignment, but of course, that is the professor's call. Yeah, we need to tweak one of our reference sections since they need to be different pertaining to the specific topic. I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, I'll do my best to help, but the professor probably has the best clarity of the assignment. It looks like you and your partner did a great job! Good luck! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jessica, thanks for your response. We'll see what happens, but I'm pretty sure either way will be fine! Till next time! MartinLubell (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem! Either way, we are all learning how the Wikipedia system works together. Cheers! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Selection Discussion

Greetings, Jim! Personally, I like the idea of doing our article on Immunolabeling (one of your choices) or Histone octamer (one of my choices). Ironically, I almost picked Immunolabeling as one of my original choices. Both topics need a great deal of expansion to make these articles a B-class to Good Article status on Wikipedia and would be fascinating topics to research the remainder of the semester. That being said, I am completely open to discussing other topics on the list, aside from our original four choices. What articles are your top choices? Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jim! I hope this finds you well. I went ahead and contacted Group D and Group E about immunolabeling as a potential article for our group since we both had interest in that topic. Group D is leaning toward fluorescent tag as their article selection, but they had it written it as one of their initial choices. I just wanted to make sure they weren't going to choose that article, which it looks unlikely that they would do so. As for Group E, Vanessa had interest in the pluripotency, lysogenic cycle, or gene duplication article, but she is waiting on her partner's ideas. Again, immunolabeling was mention in their original choices, so I wanted to clear it by them as well. Since this assignment's deadline is tomorrow (Wednesday), I plan to claim our group article selection tomorrow morning (Wednesday) and begin the article rationale summary if I do not hear a response from you by then in order to complete the assignment before the deadline. Perhaps, you have been busy with other classes, work, and/or this group page is not marked on your watchlist page, meaning you didn't get my original e-mail notice? Also, maybe we could exchange other e-mail addresses and/or phone numbers that are checked more often when other future group decisions need to be made. I look forward to hearing from you before tomorrow morning! Have a great day! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Jessica. I didn't mean to make you nervous about the pending assignment. For the sake of mental health, I promise that I will respond to you no later than Monday on these wiki assignments. I absolutely prefer the "immunolabeling" topic. My reasoning is that I suspect the "histone octamer" topic will be a straight forward research article whereby we find all the information, organize it, and cite it. If we choose a technique however, such as immunolabeling, we will we be producing something for a potentially larger audience and we will have the freedom to focus on the applications we consider most relevant. On the other hand, I can't imagine ever fighting over anything relating to the histone octamer. So that is it in a nutshell. I think we have more creative space when it comes to immunolabeling and that should keep us both more motivated than we otherwise would be. If you have a strong affinity for something else, just let me know. I'm sure you can sway me. If not, let me take first stab at the rationale. I'll put it up no later than this evening. Jakodak (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim, it's not a problem. I sincerely appreciate your help for my peace of mind when it comes to these wiki assignments. The main reason I expressed concern is that I assume these weekly assignments will continue to be lengthier and more involved as we develop our article for the duration of the semester. If we have a little more time before the deadline, it will be easier to tweak the last minute details if necessary. Thanks for being understanding and for your reassurance. In regards to the article selection, I definitely agree with you. You do make valid points in that we would stay more motivated and have more creative freedom with immunolabeling, whereas histone octamer would give us less "think outside the box" freedom. Plus, I believe immunolabeling would be interesting and more complex to research. Do you think we should wait to hear from the other groups before we claim, or should we claim it now since we are close to the deadline? If you think we should go ahead a claim it, I will just follow your format of the rationle summary (your first stab at it is more than welcome) and contribute my thoughts on the article afterwards. Sound like a plan? Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jessica, I'll go ahead and claim it. My guess, is that doing so only simplifies everyone else's choice and I doubt that most others will be as committed as we are to this particular topic.71.166.62.62 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Jakodak (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim, that works for me! I agree - it will be simpler for us all in end. I will add in my two senses to the summary after you. FYI - there is no signature on your last post. Thought I'd let you know so no minor points will be deducted.  :) Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim, first, I moved the rationale summary from our talk page to our group page since it mentioned that it was supposed to be on the group page on this week's outline. No worries, it is hard for me to keep track of the correct pages we are supposed to post which postings. You provided great information on your portion of the article, so my ideas were easy to incorporate. In order for me to add my ideas and keep the summary under 300 words (per assignment requirements), I had to condense some of your paragraphs in order to fit in some of my thoughts and paragraphs. The content is merely the same. Also, I took off your unsigned signature at the end since this is a group assignment, which was produced by both of us (none of the other students had signatures either). Please see my additions and edits on our project page, and if you feel that we need edit and/or add more, please feel free to do so. Thanks for all your help today! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Jessica, I like your additions - a specific critique of the current article along with the editing techiques we'll employ to improve it. Nice catch on the placement of the New Section. I purposely avoided the use of a signature for the obvious reasons, but it seems that within the talk page there is a default reference to the creator regardless. I'm starting to get into this a little bit. Look forward to working with you.Jakodak (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim, I'm glad to hear that you liked the additions to the summary. This article definitely has a lot of room for improvements, but like you implied, I think this will be a fun challenge. Not a problem - this system has taken me time to get used to as well; however, I think it will continue to be easier as the semester proceeds. Yeah, I thought you were avoiding the signature since it was deemed as "unsigned". It is good to know about the apparent default signature on the talk pages - thanks for sharing that. I look forward to working with you as well. Cheers! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Key Concepts to Incorporate in Immunolabeling Article

Jim, below is a list of some concepts that I think will help benefit our newly selected article on Immunolabeling. Please feel free to add your ideas, too. I look forward to hearing about your perspectives.

~Modify the current lead section. It has a straightforward opening statement, but maybe there could be a way to include general statements describing the technique? A fellow Wiki editor made a valid point in October 2011 that this topic "may be too technical" for a general audience to understand.

~Incorporate references and inline citations within the lead section when needed.

~Add a table of contents right after the lead section to give the reader what topics about immunolabeling will be listed below.

~If we could find a general image (free of copyrights) of describing the technique in the lead section, this will help the audience understand the overall concept immensely.

~Once the current lead section is edited and our additions are included, we can add and expand the article by comprising individual "sections" that describe ways this technique is used.

~History of Immunolabling

~Immunolabeling for Live-cells Imaging

~Immunolabeling in Tissues

~Immunolabeling for Electron Microscopy (i.e., labeling chromosome structure)

~Immunolabeling for Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

~Immunolabeing with gold, which is also called Immunogold labeling

Those are some of the key points that I thought could be listed within our article. While researching more about immunolableing, the direction that we take this article seems to be limitless. This is exciting to know! None of my textbooks really had any "general" information on this topic, so I am going to go to my local library and/or the medical library by my work to see if I locate any textbooks. I feel the textbooks will give some general information that can be used within the lead section as references and inline citations. I don't have a preference of which sandbox page we use for the remaining part of this week's assignment. I was going to use my sandbox page if I get to the reference part of the assignment first, but I am waiting to hear back from Dr. Ogg to see if we need to move our references from Unit 5 since none of the references pertain to immunolabeling. If we have to start from scratch, it is no biggie. I am starting to get some ideas on what references may be helpful for our article. Once some of the references are posted on the sandbox page, we can start on the outline for the article (new section) and voice our views on the immunolabeling talk page with other Wiki editors. I look forward to hearing about your ideas! I will keep you posted on my search for textbooks. Have a great day! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jim! Just an FYI - I heard back from Dr. Ogg, and we will just have to start from scratch on our references since Unit 5 references do not pertain to immunolabeling. I tried looking up immunolabeling in the 3 textbooks that we both had listed from the Unit 5 assignment, but I think our technique is too specific. I couldn't find anything in there about the topic; however, I have found numerous journal articles about immunolabeling. I wanted to let you know in case you started on the assignment later tonight or tomorrow, so you didn't waste your time moving the Unit 5 references over to the sandbox page. I went to the public library here in town, but the topic was too scientific and specific for the textbooks I was trying to locate. I will go to the medical science library near my lab after work tomorrow to see if I can hunt down some of the books I was looking for and/or find new ones. If I have some luck tomorrow with the textbooks, I will post all my references together shortly thereafter. Quick question - do you know where and how we should go about looking for a free copyright image of immunolabeling? All the textbooks and papers almost always have copyrights. Thanks. Hope you are well! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Jessica, thanks for running down the reference transfer issue. With regards to your question about images already in the public domain, I do not know of any useful trove. However, in my experience, if one has time and we do have about two months to put this article together, getting the requisite permission is not impossible. Sometimes it is easy. If we see something juicy, we should just ask the publisher who is usually the copyright holder, but not always. I'll volunteer for that task. Many publishers have a well-established process for handling such requests. As for the administrative issue, since you consistently get the earlyjump on the wiki assignment, I agree, let's work from your sandbox.

As for the article itself, I'm starting to understand that crafting a good article necessitates a clear vision of what shouldn't be in it as well as what should. For example, last week when I was discussing this with you, I thought that we could go hog wild explaining particular techniques. Given the fuller context however, there are already articles on the immunolabeling subcategories of immunocytochemistry and immunohistochemistry, I now think this would be a mistake and provide too much overlap. It now seems to me that this article would be most useful and distinctive by providing just a road map to these techniques and instead getting very specific about the tools themselves: the antibody, the binding dynamics of antibody, the antibody tag, the difference between a direct and indirect approach, the practical disadvantage of the direct approach, how are the primary and secondary antibody made, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the different tags and what general information can be gathered. This kind of approach should absolutely include your suggested subsection on history. Perhaps all discussion of the tags can fall under a subsection so labeled. I would only take issue with your number 2 and 3 subsection suggestions because of the already existent articles on immunocytochemistry and immunohistochemistry. I agree with you that we should really concentrate on the getting the lead right and then letting that guide us the rest of the way.

Here are my thoughts on the lead section outline:

- Define immunolabeling and then distinguish immunocytochemistry from immunohistochemistry and provide links to these two existent articles.

- Explain the kind of information that can be obtained through immunolabeling

- Distinguish and define the direct and indirect approaches.

- Explain why the indirect approach is the more common approach.

- Explain antibody binding and specificity.

- Explains the merits of the most common tags.

- Explain how the primary and secondary antibodies are made.

- Explain how the tag information is collected and resolved.Jakodak (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim, I was browsing through others' outlines, and Group D had a link to images. On Jamie's sandbox page, there is a link to multiple images on their topic called "Wikipedia Commons". I remember reading about this in the previous unit, which was a handout on images and the copyrights. Perhaps, one of us can figure out how to get to the site in regards to our topic in order to have the link to our outline? Like you said, we only have 2 months to finish this project, and we would have to wait too long for approval. I think we should use the Wikipedia Commons site to avoid copyright policies. What do you think?

Thank you for pointing out the generality of my subsection #2 and #3. You make a valid point - they would overlap with immunocytochemistry and immunohistochemistry. I will just delete those out of our outline all together. Yes, I agree with you. I think we should have a clear vision of how we want to layout the article to avoid confusion later, and I like how your ideas are more general in that they talk about the different aspects of how and why immunolabeling is used. The only question I had about your ideas: wouldn't some of those ideas be after the lead section within their own separate section since this outline is on the whole article for the semester, not just the lead section (at least that was my understanding)?

I went to the medical science library this morning before work at the lab got too busy. Apparently, the university is on spring break this week, so no one was really willing to help me out. I used their catalog computer, but the books that I found online yesterday as well as other books on immunolabaling were not at that library. Again, the library had numerous journal article sources, but that defeated my purpose for going to the library. We may just have to stick to online journals as our sources for this assignment. Maybe I will be able to locate some textbooks during the course of the project? Fingers crossed!

With that being said, I will continue to do more research on references that pertain to our ideas listed above tonight. My goal is to begin the outline tonight by adding the corresponding references (of course we will not have references for all the topics quite yet). If I have time, I can go ahead and add the list of ideas that you mentioned above to the outline as I outline some of my ideas on my sandbox page. From there, please feel free to make any edits to our outline and/or add more ideas and references to the outline.

As for the imgaes, since you volunteered for the free copyright images, that would be just great! Let me know what you think about the Wikipedia Commons idea. Hope that helps! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim, I posted 2 new sections on my sandbox page: "Explanation of References for Unit 7" and "Immunolabeling Outline". One of the bulletins for this week was to explain each reference for the other partner to have a better understanding for doing so. I made it a straightforward explanation without adding the actual reference in this section since it would conflict with our outline reference numbering system. As for the outline, I combined our ideas, so it should be simple to follow. I need to add more references, but it is getting pretty late in the evening. I will search for more references tomorrow and add them accordingly. I tried to take a stab at the free images on the Wikimedia (correction from name mentioned above) Commons. There weren't too many specific immunolabeling pictures, just videos where the technique was used. Since you wanted to give it a try, please feel free to do so. Maybe you will have better luck than I did? I hope you like the outline thus far, and please feel free to edit and add any additional sections that I may have left out. Have a good one! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Good evening, Jim! I added more references to the outline tonight, so it is starting to feel more complete. However, more are needed. I have a feeling it will be a continuous search on information, but at least we will have a good start. Just a heads up - for the Explanation of References for Unit 7 on my sandbox page, you will most likely have to change the reference numbers next to my explanations once you start adding your references in the outline section. Apparently, the reference number in the outline is based on where it is placed in the outline list. The top of the outline will have priority over the rest (the closer the line is to the top of the list, the more likely it will be reference #1). Therefore, I had to change my reference numbers within my explanation as I added my references in the outline in order for them to match. It is a bit of a pain, so I thought I would let you know ahead of time. Please let me know how the image search goes for you. Also, I added some improvements on the actual Immunolabeling talk page (last part of assignment for the week), so feel free to add to my list. Again, if you feel the outline needs some editing or additions, please do so. I tried to do my portion of the assignment by tonight since there has been a death in my husband's family, so I will probably not be able to work on this tomorrow with all the services being held tomorrow evening (Wednesday). Good luck on the edits and additions! I look forward to see your input! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Jessica, very sorry about your loss. Take it easy for a few days, we have a good jump on this I think. To be brief, I made a few edits to the outline. Since the lead sections on the good articles are about four paragraphs, I want to introduce all of the main conceepts in the lead and make it robust so most of my additions lie there. I will try and find the ideal images and seek any requisite permissions; the potential payoff might be worth the effort.Jakodak (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim, thank you for the sincere condolences - greatly appreciated. Yes, I think some R&R would do me some good. Thank you for the further explanation on an appropriate lead section for a good article. As for your edits and additions to the outline, I thought it looked great and put the cohesiveness it needed for a clear overall picture of what needs to be done with the article. Good luck with finding any additional images. If we luck out with permission on some images, you are right in that it may be a payoff in the end due to the lack and/or little free images on this topic. As for references, I will keep looking and adding them as the development of the article proceeds, but I think we have a good start on them thus far, unless you can find any additional ones in the meantime. Have a good day! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First Contribution

Hi, Jim! I hope you had a nice Spring Break from the studies for a bit. I definitely did! Since this week seems to be a relatively hefty assignment compared to other weeks, I am going to continue to look up more references since we need more of them and get started on this assignment sooner rather than later. Also, I am going to write a brief note on the actual article talk page to make sure there are no objections of other Wikipedians for us redoing most of the lead section of our article since there are no references to support that information. If I can find articles to support that information, it may be a little easier to tweak the original information. However, from our outline of the article, I think we will be redoing most of the lead section to align with our outline. Since we are required to create 8-10 new paragraphs, I was going to focus my attention on some of the lead section, history, and examples of how immunolabeling is used. I know you wanted to incorporate many of your ideas into the lead section, so please feel free to add your two senses into that section or my focus areas as well. Any leads on images that we can use? Since I have had numerous assignments due this week, I have completed most of them. Now, I can fully focus on this assignment. My goal was to work on the bulk of my concentration areas on this week's assignment tomorrow (Monday), so we can have a few days to edit before the deadline. Plus, I will be eager to see your ideas. Does that work for you? Hope all is well! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jessica. That sounds fine. Look for my major contribution sometime on Tuesday. Yes, I did make progress in hunting down permission for the use of images. Specifically, Dr. Thomas Caceci, Director of the Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine Morphology Research Lab, has graciously given us permission to use his immunolabeled micrographs. We can also use his cartoon diagram, but we would probably want to edit it with Photoshop first. To get a look at the images on offer, go to: [1]. The page is titled Fluorescent and Enzymatic Tagging. I'm also quite confident we can get more from Dr. Caceci if we want it. --Jakodak (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Jim, that sounds great! Thank you for seeking Dr. Caceci's permission in order for us to use his sources. I couldn't open up the link that you had listed since the site says there is an error. However, I search the title, and this is the site I found: [2]. Is this the site you were talking about? It looks very similar to the link you have listed above. If so, the cartoon and other images look great on that page. That sounds like a plan. I will add as much information and references to the main article page today, and I look forward to seeing your contributions sometime Tuesday. Have a great day! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Jim. Well, I finished my first stab at the first contribution for this week's assignment. Unfortunately, I was still unable to find any history on just immunolabeling, so I focused on the indirect and direct methods, antibodies binding and specificity, and the common techniques that that use immunolabeling. I added about 8 paragraphs to get a head start since I rather get more done now since I had the time. Plus, I started to add a list of references to get us started. I didn't touch the lead section since you seemed to have some good ideas on how you wanted to lay out that section. Once you start editing the lead section and adding your contributions tomorrow, I will feel more comfortable brushing up that section and other sections you may add to with references and such if needed. Please feel free to do the same with my sections I added as well. Also, I didn't start a "brief" progress report for Unit 9 since my contributions were more obvious that less obvious. If we have to tweak that cartoon, we can add that to the brief report. As far as the images go, I am fine with using the cartoon from Dr. Caceci. I didn't want to tweak it since I assumed we would want it in the lead section. Also, there is a free immunolabeling image on the Wikimedia Commons section that I linked to our outline. It was a picture of "histopathology of uterine leiomyosarcoma", so I don't know if you want to use that image at some point in the article? I look forward to seeing your insights tomorrow! Good luck! Talk soon. Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Jessica, reworked the first three paragraphs and added the cartoon I made with Dia software. Will make more changes on the lead Wednesday night. I'll start searching for more references. I'll also send you the images I'd like to add and get your take on which should be shown in the article. Let me know if you like the cartoon and feel free to make any improvements. I really like the references you've added thus far, it has really enabled me to concentrate on lead structure.Jakodak (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Jim, the substantial edits and additions in the lead sections looked well-written and organized. Looks wonderful! Let me know how the search for references for the lead section goes. Since this is only a first contribution, we won't be docked off points if everything isn't picture perfect (per Dr. Ogg). We just need to mention the references in the brief progress report if you can't find much tonight. I like the cartoon that is listed in the lead section right now very well. The concepts look similar to the cartoon on Dr. Caceci's webpage, so I am currently double-checking with Dr. Ogg to see if we need to add a footnote below the image since we were granted permission to use his image. Also, I asked her if we do use any of his other images if we just need to add a footnote and reference of the image to the article page. I will keep you posted on her response. I am going to start the Unit 9 brief progress report on our project page. Once you finish what you want to add tonight (Wed.), we can fine tune the short report tomorrow. I'm glad the current references helped you out. Look forward to seeing the images that you like! Talk soon. Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good morning, Jim! I got a response from Dr. Ogg this morning in regards to the images. Since you created the cartoon from Dia software, Dr. Ogg thought it should be referenced by you as the author since you created the image and a footnote by the image. If you adapted the image from Dr. Caceci, she said just say "adapted from Dr. Caceci" under the picture with a reference and footnote if that is what you did. I assume you would still be the author if it was an adapted image? I will leave the decision up to you of how to properly cite the cartoon image. If we do decide to use more images from Dr. Caceci, it will be pretty straightforward to use him as a reference and use a footnote by the image. I added four bullets for the progress report on our group project page. If you want to tweak it or add up to one more bullet, please feel free to do so. I think we have made great progress this week, and it is all starting to come together. Thanks for all your help! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits/Second Contributions

Hello, Jim! I have a final later this week in my other course that I am taking this term, so I will be adding my edits and main contributions over the next few days (probably no later than Tuesday). I have already done some of the minor edits. Under Martin's suggestions, I did all his edits/suggestions except his question about the 4th paragraph (about the dense gold) in the lead section and the first bulletin about singular and plural issues. I have not addressed Tisquestra's suggestions yet since they will take a little more time to do so. She mentioned adding a visual in the lead section about a tagged antibody, but I thought your image you placed in the lead section addressed that issue. What do you think? Either way, I will try to address some of those suggestions as well. In addition, since we have to have our images in place for this week's assignment, how do you want to reference your image you created in the lead section? Also, shouldn't we add a few more images through the article since we have permission to use those images? Plus, we will have to reference them, but I thought I would leave that up to you since you know the references of your source. Lastly, I will try to add more substance to the overall article based on our outline; given the references I can find to support the new additions. I hope this finds you well, and I look forward to seeing this article continue to evolve . Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. I was trying to continue to edit our current article this morning, and I had a few questions for you in order to get your insights. First, all of Martin’s suggestions that are listed on the article’s talk page have been edited except for the following:

• “Issues with singular and plurals: use “piped links” to solve problem” – He listed this for first two paragraphs in the lead section for having this issue. I don’t necessarily agree with this error, or maybe I am not seeing it clearly? Generally speaking, there is one antigen of interest with more than one antibody that is specific to it. Also, there is usually only one tag that is fused to the specific antibodies. If this science is correct, I don’t see how there can be a singular and plurals issue. What do you think?
• In the fourth paragraph of the lead section, he asked a question about the following: “If the gold is so dense that it is impenetrable, why is there radiation from it? Wouldn’t it be more if a black spot?” Do you know how we should address this in our response to him?

As I mentioned before, Tisquestra’s suggestions may take a little longer. I wanted to get your opinion on her suggestions.

• She mentioned that the table of contents should be more towards the top of the lead section. My understanding is that the table of contents goes at the end of the lead section before the supportive info. Opinion?
• Next, she thought we need a more descriptive image in the lead section since it is too vague. Honestly, I like the way the image is since it is straightforward. In the end, the simpler this complex topic is, the more likely the reader will understand it. What do you think?
• She thought the second to last paragraph in the lead section should be in its own section since there is only one application (drug linked to a certain organ) that is discussed for the remainder of the paragraph. What are your thoughts?
• For the EM and SEM sections that I wrote, I will try to correct those sections from supportive literature.
• She thought we should add a citation for the first paragraph of the lead section – I can try to help find literature on that.
• The second paragraph in the lead second needs more literature to support it since the book can’t be accessed from online. I will try to help with that area, too, if I have such luck across my research for more papers.
• Lastly, I will revise the “Indirect vs. Direct Methods” with additional citations.

Dr. Ogg’s Suggestions:

• I already edited the subcategories under the techniques of immunolabeling, so they show up in the table of contents.
• Dr. Ogg thought the “Antibody and Binding Specificity” section should be more generalized for the audience. Got any ideas? Sometimes it is hard to write this all out in laymen terms. I will do my best on this modification.
• I’m not too sure if she gave you any recommendations for the lead section during her grading, but she mentioned that she thought it is well-written overall.

Please let me know what you think about the images I mentioned in my previous post. I will add more info today and tomorrow as well as do my best with the edits. Once I get your opinions on our classmates’ opinions, I will write an interaction post back to them both of the corrections and opinions. Please feel free to voice your insights to them as well. My apologies for the lengthy post, but I am try to knock this part of our project out earlier this week since I will be working on my 20 essay questions final in my other class in the latter part of the week. I look forward to your help and advice. Thanks, Jim! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Jim, I have modified/corrected some of the bulletins that I posted this morning. They are as followed:

• “Issues with singular and plurals: use “piped links” to solve problem” – He listed this for first two paragraphs in the lead section for having this issue. I don’t necessarily agree with this error, or maybe I am not seeing it clearly? Generally speaking, there is one antigen of interest with more than one antibody that is specific to it. Also, there is usually only one tag that is fused to the specific antibodies. If this science is correct, I don’t see how there can be a singular and plurals issue. What do you think?--CORRECTED THIS---there were a few minor singular/plural issues in the first two paragraphs in the lead section.
• In the fourth paragraph of the lead section, he asked a question about the following: “If the gold is so dense that it is impenetrable, why is there radiation from it? Wouldn’t it be more if a black spot?” Do you know how we should address this in our response to him?--STILL need your advice on this one.

As I mentioned before, Tisquestra’s suggestions may take a little longer. I wanted to get your opinion on her suggestions.

• She mentioned that the table of contents should be more towards the top of the lead section. My understanding is that the table of contents goes at the end of the lead section before the supportive info. Opinion?
• Next, she thought we need a more descriptive image in the lead section since it is too vague. Honestly, I like the way the image is since it is straightforward. In the end, the simpler this complex topic is, the more likely the reader will understand it. What do you think?
• She thought the second to last paragraph in the lead section should be in its own section since there is only one application (drug linked to a certain organ) that is discussed for the remainder of the paragraph. What are your thoughts?
• For the EM and SEM sections that I wrote, I will try to correct those sections from supportive literature.--Plan to correct tomorrow.
• She thought we should add a citation for the first paragraph of the lead section – I can try to help find literature on that.--ADDED 2 citations for the first paragraph in the lead section.
• The second paragraph in the lead second needs more literature to support it since the book can’t be accessed from online. I will try to help with that area, too, if I have such luck across my research for more papers.--I fixed the citation to link to the actual page of the book, so it is easily accessible as an online form.
• Lastly, I will revise the “Indirect vs. Direct Methods” with additional citations.--I looked this over, and both paragraphs in this section do, indeed, come from the source I listed. I will mention this in the interaction post to her.

Dr. Ogg’s Suggestions:

• I already edited the subcategories under the techniques of immunolabeling, so they show up in the table of contents.
• Dr. Ogg thought the “Antibody and Binding Specificity” section should be more generalized for the audience. Got any ideas? Sometimes it is hard to write this all out in laymen terms. I will do my best on this modification.--CORRECTED--added a substantial amount of info in this section.
• I’m not too sure if she gave you any recommendations for the lead section during her grading, but she mentioned that she thought it is well-written overall.

I look forward to your opinions. Sorry for an additional reply, but I wanted to give you an update of what I did today. I didn't want you to waste your efforts on a corrected section already. Feel free to let me know if you like or dislike the edits/additions. Please let me know your thoughts are on these remaining bulletins and the images, and I will get started on the interactions with our classmates thereafter. I will try to add more tomorrow (Tuesday) and finish up edits, too. Talk soon! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Jim, I have added my final contributions and edits for this round today. All of Martin's suggestions are completed (except the 4th paragraph as mentioned above-lead section was your area-not too sure how to address that). All of Tisquestra's citation suggestions have been addressed, except I couldn't find a good source for a general meaning of immunolabeling for the first few sentences of the lead section (before immunocytochemistry and immunohistochemstry). Maybe you will have better luck? As for her formatting suggestions, I mentioned what I thought above but wanted your opinion before I moved forward. Lastly, I added a great deal to the techniques section for more content. I'm hoping the images will be easy additions to this article for you, but as I mentioned before, I am not too sure how to go about referencing of them. Since this is the last opportunity to add them (under Unit 11-12 outline), I thought it may be easier for you to do so. I am sure you have been busy since I know how hectic the end of the semester always is for everyone. If I don't hear any feedback from you by mid-day tomorrow (Wednesday), I will go ahead and interact with our reviewers in order for me to focus on my final in my other class. Please feel free to add your insights to my opinions on my posts to them. I hope this finds you well. Take care! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jim! I have made more additions and edits based off of what our OA (Klortho) suggested. I was able to address most of the bulletins that he mentioned, but I left the lead section edits and image additions up to you. The immunolabeling article talk page will be a good guide for you as well as this page to see what I have and have not done yet. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask/tell me. I'm here to help in any way I can. Best of luck with the remaining edits/additions. Happy Friday! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Final Contributions and Edits

Hi, Jim! I have made most of my final edits and additions to our article's page. Please use the main article's talk page with the interactions with our reviewers as your guide. All the areas that I left mainly untouched were associated with the lead section since that was one of your main focal points of the project. There were a few bulletins in the lead section from Aaron that were easy fixes that I went ahead and addressed. The only other area that I needed help with that was from David's review was #5 under Indirect vs. Direct Method. The "jargon" words that he is talking about cannot be linked to any Wikipedia words, and I tried to make it as simple as possible from the reference I got the information from. Any ideas? I hope everything is much better in your world, and I did my best to alleviate some of the stresses from this project. I just need your help with the areas we talked about earlier (the images and the edits from the lead section), so hopefully, those will be easy edits. Please feel free if you need anything else from me. Best wishes on the edits. Talk soon! 17:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Jim, I have added my final edits and contributions for our semester-long project. Keilana (OA) added more suggestions, so I have spent most of the day working on chipping away at most of them since I had some downtime at work today. There were a few bulletins left on that list pertaining to the lead section since I feel you would be the better person to do the major editing of this section. However, I was able to do minor edits to the lead section. Again, please refer to my interactions with all the reviewers on the article's talk page as your reference. I look forward to seeing our final product after you insights are added to the page! Please feel free to make edits in my areas (may take place since some of the lead section needs to be moved to other areas) as well, and if you have any questions/comments, please don't hesitate to ask. This has been a great learning experience and a privilege to go along with you for the ride. Best of luck to you in your future classes! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I almost forgot...I will start (probably on 5/8) our final progress report that is part of this week's assignment on what I know. Once you add your part, maybe you can add to the report if there are some subtle points in regards to the images or writings that I may not know about. Please feel free to add to the list. Thanks! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)