Wikipedia talk:USEP/Courses/JHU MolBio Ogg 2012/Section 83/Group 83C

Article Suggestions

Hello Dechava1 and Jedwar48

I did a quick pass over a sample of the articles whence we're supposed to pick candidates to "improve". I noticed Amplicon was very small. I'm not eager to get wrapped up in something that will consume vast numbers of hours. By just adding references to this article, we would be making a significant improvement. Everything else would be icing on the cake.

Oskar and Segment polarity gene also stand out as places where we would look like rock stars for doing very little work.

This may seem kind of lazy but in my experience, little projects often grow to gargantuan proportions when you're working on a team so the smaller you start, the higher the probability of delivering something.

If you folks agree with my assessment, please let me know and I'll put our group number next to one of them. I honestly don't care which myself but my personal preference is that we get this resolved earlier rather than later.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks Dusty40 (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the conversation!

Hi Anthony,

Thanks for getting the ball rolling in picking an article for our group to improve upon. I'm reviewing some of the articles that you've suggested - so please bear with me.

Looking forward to working together on this. Thanks! Jedwar48 (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy with your suggestions - but let's pick ASAP!

Hi Anthony,

Your suggestions are great. It is obvious that Amplicon needs cited sources, but if chosen, I would like to try to add further information to the article, as it is all part of the "learning experience" of using Wikipedia for this class. Remember, we also need to write a one-page rationale for our choice so we need a bit more of a reason than missing sources, though that reason is likely good enough in general. I would be happy choosing Amplicon or Oskar, as Oskar is just a stub, but we should pick quickly, as I'm sure the other groups would have realized by this time that the articles you've listed are on the less-lengthly end.

I am ready to begin writing a rationale when you and Diane are. Would you like to draft the rationale on Sandbox or via another website such as Google Docs?

Thanks! Jedwar48 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Selected Amplicon (preliminary)

Hi Jamie and Diane

I've taken the liberty of selecting Amplicon for our group. I've only heard from Jamie so far and not Diane. Jamie appeared to be okay with Amplicon so I thought I'd grab it while it was available. Presumably we can change our minds later if Diane does not approve.

Yes, naturally, I want to try to add more than just references, but I like to have a fallback position in case we run out of time.

Of note, within a week of starting a JHU, I hammered on their library system until I figured out how to get access to the periodic journals to which they subscribe. If you go to JHU Journal Search and click the link entitled Google Scholar, you can do a keywords search, then click one of the full text links to the right of the article in the Google results. You'll be asked for your JHU username and password, then viola! (If the article shows up in Google Scholar but JHU doesn't have a subscription, you'll be informed.) You may have already known this, but I'm putting it out there anyway.

The directions appear to say that we have to draft our rationale on our group page. Here's what it says.

Use this page (not the talk page) for article assessments (optional, see Unit 5); rationale for selecting an article (Unit 6); progress reports (Units 9 and 12); and the final report (Unit 14). Please create a new section here for each of those assignments.

The advantage of using the group page is that we don't have to worry about Sherry or our review group having to manage an extra set of credentials (which they would have to do with google docs.)

I will be emailing a copy of this message to both of you with my email address. Yes, I prefer email for general correspondence.

As for beginning work on the rationale, Jamie -- if you've got the time, be my guest. I'm sure Diane and I will jump in and push things around as needed. Thanks!

Dusty40 (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Unit 6 article selection rationale

Hi Diane and Jamie -

Here's my first stab at the "rationale". It's already 100 words. If you guys add a hundred words each, we'll be at the 300 word requirements. Then we can move it from the talk page to the group page.

Please feel free to hack away.

Thanks

Dusty40 (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There are three main reasons for choosing [Amplicon] as our Wikipedia article.

1. As noted in the Unit 6 directions, picking a brief article reduces the work necessary to improve the article. That is, it's low hanging fruit and almost anything we choose to add will be an improvement.
2. It’s absent references. Adding references is an easy task that improves the value of the article a great deal. That is, adding references gives us “the biggest bang for our buck.”
3. At least one of us has a passing interest in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and similar technologies. Specifically, HIV research is Anthony’s main area of interest and PCR is a mainstay for tracking viral titer both in research and conventional medicine.

-- One suggestion would be to go ahead and draft it on the project page. That's the whole purpose of a wiki, after all. It would also give you a little bit of experience in how the drafting, editing, and revising process go. Doesn't really matter though, it's up to you! Klortho (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Addition to Anthony's rationale

Hi Anthony and Diane,

I made some slight additions and edits to Anthony's first draft of our group rationale. Feel free to edit as you wish! ---

There are three main reasons for choosing [Amplicon] as our Wikipedia article.

1. As noted in the Unit 6 directions, picking a brief article reduces the work necessary to improve the article. That is, it's low hanging fruit and almost anything we choose to add will be an improvement. As "new" Wikipedians, we feel that editing this article would be appropriate and comfortable for learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia, while also gaining additional knowledge on the subject of amplicons. 1a. Wikipedia has noted on the Amplicon page that it is in fact a "stub", meaning that the article is "deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". By choosing Amplicon we hope to add to the information currently available on Wikipedia with both our basic knowledge of molecular biology and further research on the subject, to make the article at least more worthy of encyclopedic-status.

2. It’s absent references. Adding references is an easy task that improves the value of the article a great deal. That is, adding references gives us “the biggest bang for our buck.” While adding substance is important, it is only valuable if the content has a credible source, i.e. peer-reviewed journals, textbooks. We want to insure that the information currently listed, as well as the information we impart through our improvements, is credible.

3. As individuals interested in biotechnology and the basic biochemical techniques that have lent themselves to this field, our group has a passing interest in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and similar technologies. Specifically, HIV research is Anthony’s main area of interest and PCR is a mainstay for tracking viral titer both in research and conventional medicine. We are looking forward to conducting further research on this topic.

Jedwar48 (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Great job so far! Here is my addition to both edits

Anthony, your suggestion really hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned! I also have fringe experience with amplicons and believe furthermore that adding information about amplicons to wikipedia will help the lay (non-science folks) understand all the new research coming out that uses newer and newer (and more effective!) sequencing techniques to solve so many of molecular biology's unknowns such as the cause of cancer or specific mutants of pathogenic species.

---

Here is my addition:

1. As noted in the Unit 6 directions, picking a brief article reduces the work necessary to improve the article. That is, it's low hanging fruit and almost anything we choose to add will be an improvement. As "new" Wikipedians, we feel that editing this article would be appropriate allowing us to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia, while also gaining additional knowledge on the subject of amplicons. 1a. Wikipedia has noted on the Amplicon page that it is in fact a "stub", meaning that the article is "deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". The article is so short that it is missing vital information that is available elsewhere about amplicons. By choosing Amplicon we hope to add to the information currently available on Wikipedia with both our basic knowledge of molecular biology and further research on the subject, to make the article at least more worthy of encyclopedic-status.

2. It’s absent references. Adding references is an easy task that improves the value of the article a great deal. That is, adding references gives us “the biggest bang for our buck.” While adding substance is important, it is only valuable if the content has a credible source, i.e. peer-reviewed journals, textbooks. We want to ensure that the information that is currently listed, as well as the information we impart through our improvements, is credible. Additionally, with emerging sequencing technologies there is more and more research being conducted using amplicons, so there will be a growing need for information on amplicons for lay people in the future in addition to a wealth of primary literature to cite.

3. As individuals interested in biotechnology and the basic biochemical techniques that have lent themselves to this field, our group has a passing interest in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and similar technologies. Specifically, HIV research is Anthony’s main area of interest and PCR is a mainstay for tracking viral titer both in research and conventional medicine. Diane is part of a research group whose primary goal is to use novel technologies to elucidate the genetics driving pancreatic cancer, including Next-generation sequencing such as Illumina, Ion Torrent and 454 pyrosequencing, all employing the use of amplicons. Given our shared general interest in this topic, we are looking forward to conducting further research to improve the Wikipedia page for Amplicons.

Dechava1 (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ready for submission

Great additions Diane. I made a few small edits that I have sent to you via email. Please review, and let me know any edits, and I can go ahead and create a new heading with the title "Unit 6 Article Selection Rationale" for our final submission. Jedwar48 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty "ready to go"

Jamie,

I did take a look at your most recent edits and give my okay to submit. Great job everyone!

Diane Dechava1 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Final Draft?

Hey there

I removed a sentence from item 2. I wasn't sure about the grammar and given time constraints it was easier to just remove it. I pushed the rest around. I hope this is okay with you guys. My edits follow:

There are three main reasons for choosing [Amplicon] as our Wikipedia article.

1. As noted in the Unit 6 directions, picking a brief article reduces the work necessary to improve the article. That is, it's low hanging fruit and almost anything we choose to add will be an improvement. As "new" Wikipedians, we feel that editing this article will allow us to learn the “ins and outs” of Wikipedia while also gaining additional knowledge on the subject. Moreover, Wikipedia has noted on the Amplicon page that it is in fact a "stub", meaning that the article is "deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". The article is so short that it is missing vital information that is available elsewhere about amplicons. We hope to add to the information currently available on Wikipedia both with our basic knowledge of molecular biology and with further research on the subject thus making the article more worthy of encyclopedic-status.
2. It is absent references. Adding references is an easy task that improves the value of the article a great deal. That is, adding references gives us “the biggest bang for our buck.” While adding substance is important, it is only valuable if the content has a credible source, i.e. peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, etc. We want to ensure that the information that is currently presented, as well as the information we impart through our improvements, is credible.
3. As individuals interested in biotechnology and the basic biochemical techniques that have lent themselves to this field, our group has a passing interest in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and similar technologies. Specifically, HIV research is Anthony’s main area of interest and PCR is a mainstay for tracking viral titer both in research and conventional medicine. Diane is part of a research group whose primary goal is to use novel technologies to elucidate the genetics driving pancreatic cancer, including Next-generation sequencing such as Illumina, Ion Torrent and 454 pyrosequencing, all employing the use of amplicons. Given our shared general interest in this topic, we are looking forward to conducting further research to improve the Wikipedia page for Amplicons.

173.160.229.1 (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Unit 6 Article Selection Rationale

There are three main reasons for choosing [Amplicon] as our Wikipedia article.

1. As noted in the Unit 6 directions, picking a brief article reduces the work necessary to improve the article. That is, it's low hanging fruit and almost anything we choose to add will be an improvement. As "new" Wikipedians, we feel that editing this article will allow us to learn the “ins and outs” of Wikipedia while also gaining additional knowledge on the subject. Moreover, Wikipedia has noted on the Amplicon page that it is in fact a "stub", meaning that the article is "deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". The article is so short that it is missing vital information that is available elsewhere about amplicons. We hope to add to the information currently available on Wikipedia both with our basic knowledge of molecular biology and with further research on the subject thus making the article more worthy of encyclopedic-status.

2. It has absent references. Adding references is an straightforward task that improves the value of the article a great deal. That is, adding references gives us “the biggest bang for our buck.” While adding substance is important, it is only valuable if the content has a credible source, i.e. peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, etc. We want to ensure that the information that is currently presented, as well as the information we impart through our improvements, is credible.

3. As individuals interested in biotechnology and the basic biochemical techniques that have lent themselves to this field, our group has a passing interest in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and similar technologies. Specifically, HIV research is Anthony’s main area of interest and PCR is a mainstay for tracking viral titer both in research and conventional medicine. Diane is part of a research group whose primary goal is to use novel technologies to elucidate the genetics driving pancreatic cancer, including Next-generation sequencing such as Illumina, Ion Torrent and 454 pyrosequencing, all employing the use of amplicons. Given our shared general interest in this topic, we are looking forward to conducting further research to improve the Wikipedia page for Amplicons.

Jedwar48 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Article rationale assignment feedback

Here is some feedback. Your rationale should be on the project page. I mentioned above that it didn't matter where the article assessments go, but the assignment, I believe, is pretty explicit that the rationale should be on the project page. That's because it's an official "deliverable".

Also, from looking at the talk page above, it seems that you guys are still in the mindset of passing around copies of documents. You copied-edited-pasted the document over and over again. This is not the "wiki way". You should use the project page to edit the document in place. If you want to see how the article evolved over time, the information is all there, in the page's version history. Klortho (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

For your consideration...

Hey there Jamie and Diane

At one point Jamie said she really wanted to add content to the Amplicon article, where I said I really wanted to add references to the existing section.

It occurs to me that it might be useful to use the article on transposons as a rough guide. The reason I suggest transposons is because as you know, amplicons and transposons are both "classes" of biochemistry related objects. They are not something specific, like the fru gene or the HIV p24 protein. If they were, I would suggest following the Wikipedia Molecular and Cellular Biology/Style guide (though that may still be useful.)

I don't think our article has to be as involved as the transposons article. I think we can probably get away with adding two 300-400 word sections -- one entitled Applications, one entitled Examples.

Here's what I propose. Please tell me what you think: I propose that I add citations to the introductory section, extending or editing it as necessary (if I can't support something or if something critical is missing.) Then you guys can each write a single 300-400 word section (perhaps less) complete with citations of your own. We'll then add a table of contents (easy) and call it good. If there's time, we can each make a pass over the article and make sure it's cohesive.

In this unit, we're supposed to parse out work and start collecting information we need to make our edits, so it would be nice to get started with our edits well before Tuesday evening.

Thoughts?

Dusty40 (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Drafting Amplicon

Hey Anthony,

Thanks for ensuring that we're on task. I definitely agree that references should be added to the existing section. In terms of expanding the article, I think that together we should work on adding a single section (max 400 words) to the Wikipedia page (and with this, reorganize the article to include another header .. or two). Since Wikipedia has a particular style of writing, I think it would be beneficial if we all worked on writing and editing an additional paragraph, similar to how we compiled and edited the "rationale".

In looking at the transposon article, we can most certainly pick from the article's format in adding information to the amplicon article about one of the following: Classification, Examples, In Disease, Rate.., Evolution, Applications. While I would be happy to start us out, I don't have much experience with PCR and/or amplicons, whereas it seems you both have some practical knowledge from job experience. Do you think one of these categories will have more information (and more unvarying information) than another? I can do some research and start writing up a draft once I have some direction from you.

Jedwar48 (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Added a Couple of Refs

Hey there

Just a note to let you guys know I added a couple of references to the article. More still to do of course!

Dusty40 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Went a little crazy...

Okay, if you look at the article now, it looks like I've done a lot, but all I've really done is add two paragraphs. It's just that after looking at other articles, it was clear to me that the two paragraphs I added really belonged in the examples section and not in the basic information section. After that, it was clear that what was originally the second paragraph in the article when we first got a hold of it really belonged in "applications".

So it looks like Jamie was right. I'm afraid I've touched the whole thing. :-\

In my opinion, at this point, we need one more application at minimum. I've marked that section with "This section requires expansion." Personally, I think LCR would be ideal (since the article does little more than mention it) but I'm not that attached. Naturally, all the sections are up for grabs. If I screwed something up, please feel free to fix it.

Fair warning, I've probably spent seven hours so far -- mostly finding citations, but a fair percentage just trying to write two paragraphs that I could support. I'm kind of slow about these things, but I just thought I'd pass on that you might want to allocate a substantial time block even if you're only doing a trivial edit.

Sorry if I went overboard.

Amplicon

Dusty40 (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's great to see you starting to edit the actual article! I just had a look, and keep in mind that my feedback are just my opinions, and not gospel. First question is, why did you guys pick transposons as your sample guide? It is only rated as C-class. You could pick a featured article instead, and try to copy its outline/style. One example that might be a good choice is proteasome.

I am not crazy about the "examples" section. I think, Dusty, that a lot of the text in that section could probably just be in the introductory paragraphs. Also, an "examples" section kind-of sounds like it should contain a list, and, in general, in Wikipedia, it's best to try to avoid sections that contain lists of things, and rather, integrate those items into the main flow of the text. (I know you see lists all the time, but usually not in featured articles). Again -- these are just some opinions -- kudos on a really good start adding content! Klortho (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, in my previous comment, I messed up the links to the category description pages, for "C-class" and "featured article". Fixed now -- I hope it didn't cause you confusion. Klortho (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback (and cheers), Klorthos.

To answer your questions: We picked transposon at random from a list of epistemologically similar topics with a simple article structure. I felt this selection would allow us to grow things organically, rather than embarking on what could be an ambitious rewrite. I appreciate the examples you have provided, but personally, I feel as though we would have to work hard to coerce the extant structure of the article into one of those. I can't speak for Jamie or Diane, but my preference would be to defer refactoring on that level to the end of the project -- if there's time.

I'm not against eliminating the Examples section. We'll see how it looks once everyone has had a turn.

Thanks again

Dusty40 (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Back!

Hi All,

I apologize for my brief absence. Power and internet are officially back on (!), so I'll take a look at the article in the next day and work on drafting some additions and such before the Tuesday deadline. Thanks for your patience, and I will be in touch tomorrow.

Jedwar48 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Progress as of 11/4

Thanks for your patience, Anthony and Diane. I have added to the wiki page, and look forward to your feedback in the coming day.

Progress Report as of 11/6 - 11:50am Jedwar48 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Our team has made progress on improving our article of interest, Amplicon, by citing sources to the text of the wiki page as we found it, and by providing additional and verifiable information to the wiki community on amplicons. In particular, as the article was missing references, let alone credible references, sources associated with the text were identified and added to the wiki page. The content of the wiki page was refined and restructured to better reflect our target for the page. Grammar was also improved upon slightly.

Substantial content was added to the wiki page as well. This includes a natural gene duplication example, a refined description of an application specific to PCR, and a paragraph on laboratory techniques that explains ways by which amplicons are quantitated.

As a group we've mostly had interaction with Klortho, but hope to have further interaction with editors, especially those who have been contributing to the Amplicon page as we work on it. Klortho’s suggestions were helpful, but we believe some of them may be somewhat ambitious given time constraints. We continue to evaluate our options.

Our “to do list” for improvements includes further polishing of the article, fact checking, and improving the flow within sections. We may also “drill down” on some of the new content. For example, we may choose to briefly define gene capture and provide links to the provided example assays somewhere on the web. Additionally, we hope to add more information to the Applications header of the page, including other ways amplicons are employed that highlight their nature, and share with the reader some implications of amplicon production and use. We may also ultimately choose to coalesce the Examples section with the introductory section of the article. Finally, the Wikipedia Referencing Guidelines admonishes us to prefer secondary sources over primary ones when citing. This has proven challenging given our topic but we intend to at least try to find some secondary sources.

So far none of us have been able to get Wikipedia to email us when our watch pages change. We understand that was a problem described in the Student Lounge forum on blackboard. Was there ever a resolution?

Jedwar48 (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, Jamie. Thanks for getting a good start on that progress report. Were you as excited as I was to actually get to edit a Wikipedia article? It's something I've always wanted to do. Wikipedia saved my butt taking graduate abstract linear algebra. I've always felt obligated to do something to try and contribute in return.

Per previous instructions, I have obliterated your (Jamie's) original draft progress report in place with my edits. See above. I didn't add much. Still need another ~50 words to hit the 400 word minimum. I've made a couple of assumptions about consensus and direction in the group. Feel free to change those if you don't agree.

Best

Dusty40 (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony, nice additions. I was definitely excited to start editing! ... although I'm a little apprehensive about using references word for word. As my question at the bottom of the progress report implies, are we allowed to use a source word for word and not put quotations marks around it like one normally would in a research paper? I'm confused as to how to tell the difference between a direct quote and paraphrasing on wikipedia, and want to make sure I'm not accidentally plagiarizing by using the source.

Page 3 of this handout seems to indicate we are permitted so long as we don't overdo it. This information may obviate the need for the last paragraph in the progress report. Do you agree?

As an aside, can you think of any other questions we might have for Klortho or other editors? We may be able to add this to the progress report.

Yeah, I added it to the progress report above.

Have you come across any articles that go into depth on amplicons?

Just the ones I've cited.

While using a featured article like Proteasome is helpful to us as a model, it seems to me that our topic is more difficult to structure because it is more application-based.

Agreed.

I haven't been able to get a good sense of "broad applications" of amplicons that can be used as organizing points with specific examples under them.

I think adding an instance of how/where LCR is used to the Applications section is probably sufficient to wrap up that section. Put another way, an "example" of an amplicon is a double minutes segment or a piece of DNA extracted from human hair (i.e. "thing"). An "application" of amplicons is PCR or LCR (i.e. "process").

Maybe we can request suggestions for how to go about structuring such a topic in our progress report (under problems/concerns)? Sample suggestions would help.

I think the structure will work itself out without the need to solicit any additional guidance. Honestly, IMHO, we're probably 80% of the way to the goal. No point encouraging those in charge to move the goal post with an additional list of expectations. ;-)

Also, any idea where you saw the bit on preferring secondary sources to primary ones? I like how you added that in, but I think we should take out the reference to your name, as it seems a little too conversational for a written report.

Here, under the question heading "What counts as a reliable source on Wikipedia?"

On another note, I think if we don't hear from Diane tomorrow that we should assume she's still dealing with the aftermath of the storm. However, since we don't know that for sure, asking for a penalty free extension from Sherry may work against us. (That is, it may turn out that Diane is not dealing with the storm but has just failed to check-in for other reasons.) Therefore, if we don't hear from her by noon (EST) tomorrow (Tuesday), I suggest we collectively extend our report to the minimum 400 words.

I've removed my name from the progress report and inserted a reference to the Wikipedia Referencing guidelines instead.

Jedwar48 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dusty40 (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I agree with you on all accounts. Added a sentence to the progress report in the "to do list" paragraph to bring us closer to the suggested word count, but otherwise I think we're done for this unit. I believe that I posted the information incorrectly the last time, so would you mind posting the content under the "Unit 9 Progress Report" header, just to insure that it's done correctly? Sorry to bother you with that. Thanks! Jedwar48 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Back online and reviewing the last post

I'm going to post my edits as soon as I clean them up a bit. I personally lost power which was restored early but work also lost power which was the bigger deterrent as freezers, samples, nitrogen tanks, mice for my group all had to be hand moved, monitored, etc. You were safe in assuming that though power is now on, the aftermath is taking its toll. I'll post my edits ASAP.

Diane Dechava1 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Added to the "Applications"

Hi Jamie and Anthony,

I have added to the amplicon article and have provided a bit of framework for the applications section. I think we can stay focused in this section by starting to divide up the technologies that use amplicons or better yet, disciplines where amplicons are used,

I made a small tweak and can post on our page.

-- Our team has made progress on improving our article of interest, Amplicon, by citing sources to the text of the wiki page as we found it, and by providing additional and verifiable information to the wiki community on amplicons. In particular, as the article was missing references, let alone credible references, sources associated with the text were identified and added to the wiki page. The content of the wiki page was refined and restructured to better reflect our target for the page. Grammar was also improved upon slightly. Substantial content was added to the wiki page as well. This includes a natural gene duplication example, a refined description of an application specific to PCR, a template under application for further expansion regading use of next-generation sequencing techniques and a paragraph on laboratory techniques that explains ways by which amplicons are quantitated. As a group we've mostly had interaction with Klortho, but hope to have further interaction with editors, especially those who have been contributing to the Amplicon page as we work on it. Klortho’s suggestions were helpful, but we believe some of them may be somewhat ambitious given time constraints. We continue to evaluate our options. Our “to do list” for improvements includes further polishing of the article, fact checking, and improving the flow within sections. We may also “drill down” on some of the new content. For example, we may choose to briefly define gene capture and provide links to the provided example assays somewhere on the web. Additionally, we hope to add more information to the Applications header of the page, including other ways amplicons are employed that highlight their nature, and share with the reader some implications of amplicon production and use. We may also ultimately choose to coalesce the Examples section with the introductory section of the article. Finally, the Wikipedia Referencing Guidelines admonishes us to prefer secondary sources over primary ones when citing. This has proven challenging given our topic but we intend to at least try to find some secondary sources. So far none of us have been able to get Wikipedia to email us when our watch pages change. We understand that was a problem described in the Student Lounge forum on blackboard. Was there ever a resolution? Diane Dechava1 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Feedback: Reviewer Group (83B)

Hi guys! I'm from group 83B; we're your peer reviewers this semester. It's great that you guys have started editing your main article already. Just a couple of thoughts I had today as I was looking over your article:

1. I see that Jamie mentioned a few sections you could expand on in your "Drafting Amplicon" section. You may want to expand that idea so you have a better idea of where to go (eg outline). Your progress report is really vague about what you want to do, and I think this is one of the reasons editing seems a bit overwhelming.
2. I know Chris mentioned the proteasome article as a potential example for you to follow, but I don't see a lot of overlap for you in terms of type of content covered: the proteasome is a protein article, you're more detailing the role of something in a method. I think you should use the proteasome for examples of diction, syntax, etc (or any FA) but use the viral vector article as an example for article structure. It is a lot more similar to what you're trying to accomplish. It's a B class article, but better than nothing. If I find something better, I'll let you guys know!
3. In terms of the "Examples" section, I agree with Chris. Tony, I understand your concerns that you don't want to embark on a major rewrite, but I am really not a fan of this section. I tried to get on board and edit, but it was just a jumble of topics. You may want to figure out subsections and a new section title, or follow Chris's recommendation and add some of that to the Intro. I think moving to the Intro is a much better option than subsections for the reasons Chris outlines. If your article ends up with only two sections, it will only move up to a Start Class article at best. I really think you should just integrate it into appropriate sections instead of keeping it in one jumbled section, if that makes sense.
4. Again, for "Applications," I think you should have subsections, but it looks like you guys are trying to figure that out. Your section titles are really broad as well; narrowing them should make editing easier.
5. Intro: what's the general purpose of amplicons?
6. I think you should delete the PCR thermocycler picture. I don't think it really adds anything
7. General for this talk page: you may want to edit your headings to better reflect section content. We did that for our page and it's been much easier to find things!
8. If I were you guys, I would detail major types of amplicons (like the viral vector page), and make Amplicon sequencing/pyrosequencing a separate section. You could use this article as a starting point, and you should be able to use that article's figures. (There are probably a lot of review articles on this topic.)

• Types of amplicons you may want to cover: HSV, Her2, and erbb2.
• If you run out of time at the end of the semester, just start the section with a few sentences and leave a note on the talk page that more information is needed.

I think once you have a more concrete idea of the things you need to do (ie specific sections instead of saying "need to add more citations"), you can divide up the work and accomplish a lot more. Just add content and my group can help you edit too! :) Hopefully that outside perspective helps you guys a bit. Let me know if something I said doesn't make sense and I'll try to clarify if I can. Db4an (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Db4an, thanks for the constructive criticism. Looks like we have some work to do! Will definitely take all your points into consideration. Points 5 & 8 are particularly helpful to us as they give us an outside perspective on what's missing from our article, but all are appreciated! Jedwar48 (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Db4an- I agree that the viral vector article is a great template for us. Thank you for suggesting it.

It really gives a structured and simple layout that can work with our topic. It would certainly be wise to include a classification adding to the user-friendliness of our article since one of our goals is to de-mystify the topic.

Amplicons can fall into 2 general categories namely, Circular or linear i.e.:

1: extrachromosomal circular amplicons with

a) direct duplications

b) inverted duplications

2: Linear inverted repeat amplicons.

Point 6 is also interesting as I personally focused on the written content did not consider that better images exist to represent our topic. We’ll keep an eye out for more of a staple amplicon picture.

Point 7 is another thought that never occurred to me- keeping our brainstorming notes organized by title to help us search our more efficiently. We'll have to keep our titles in mind as we edit. I'll take a look at your group's page to see how you have kept conversations organized.

Thanks again for the quality review as you gave us great insight!

Diane

Dechava1 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I get amplicons a little better now. Thanks Diane! I also wanted to apologize about editing grammar for your article a few weeks ago. I completely misinterpreted the directions and thought that was one of our responsibilities as a reviewer group. Luckily, Tony was kind enough to point out my mistake on Blackboard. Again, I'm really sorry about that! You guys seem to be making great progress so far. Let us know if you need anything at all. Good luck! Db4an (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

test

Testing to see if I get an email...

Dusty40 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

boop boop Db4an (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Next steps...

Hi Tony and Diane, how would we like to divide up the work and tackle the next steps for polishing and improving upon the Amplicon article, taking our reviewers' feedback and own "progress report" into consideration? Jedwar48 (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My plan was to eliminate the examples section, moving elements alternatively to Applications or to the main header. I was thinking you guys might add the links and references I suggested. I may also seek out something on LCR, since I think it's important to drill down on that.

That my suggested approach anyway.

Dusty40 (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

After looking more closely at the recent changes to the article, I realized that the Examples section seemed to be talking more about the technology used with amplicons and less about examples of amplicons, so I relabeled the section Technology, and moved the information I previously had there about natural gene duplication and artificial duplication (i.e. my "examples") to the header section. (We previously discussed eliminating the example section, so that's what I did.) I also noticed that there was some technology related stuff in the Applications section, so I moved that to the new Technology section as well.

Finally, as promised, I added an LCR example -- though I don't go into as much detail as the author of the PCR example did.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks

Dusty40 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Tony, your ideas look good. I've been doing some more research for subject matters that we could add to our introductory paragraphs, as according to our reviewers, this area is lacking. I thought that we could add some general guidelines for amplicon sequencing experimental design, as an explanation of how they are used may highlight some of the characteristics important to amplicons. I found some information here: http://my454.com/downloads/my454/applications-info/454SequencingSystem_GuidelinesforAmpliconExperimentalDesign_July2011.pdf, what do you think of adding some points on this?

Are there any other ways that we can outline our introduction to be a little more succinct? I'm afraid that there is not enough detail on the wiki page as to what an amplicon really is... if say, you were visiting the wikipedia page for the first time... but I'm not sure what to add! I went to the library to check out other molecular biology text books, as I thought they might have a better summary of an amplicon, but I didn't have much luck. Let me know where you think we could expand in the introduction, and I can work on finalizing that area. Thanks for keeping us on point! Jedwar48 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jamie

I'm a little confused. In your first paragraph, you say our reviewers say our introductory section is lacking. In your next paragraph you say you would like to make it more succinct. I've already moved quite a bit of stuff to this section. I admit that after one of our editors made his/her changes that one sentence I wrote about amplicons turned into one about amplification methods in general. I could restructure the sentence to be about amplicons again. That might clear things up?

I asked my boss, who is a smart guy, but a layman on topics of molecular biology, to read the article and give me his comments. He came away unclear that "amplification" meant "copying" so I clarified the first paragraph to specify that. He also suggested that we dumb down the paragraph on the human sex determination. I haven't tried that yet. What do you think?

If you feel we need more in the introduction, I say go for it. I'm happy to make another editing pass, but at this late date in the term, I really think we've accomplished about 95% of our mission.

Thanks

173.160.229.1 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding one more thing: To answer you question, I think the link you provided has lots of good information. Perhaps with some time we could extract something appropriate to our subject -- but I think if we choose to mine this reference that there might be a tendency for our article to drift even further into the subject of amplification and away from amplicons. If the reader wants to know more about amplification, IMHO they should look at the PCR, LCR, and gene duplication links we have provided.

173.160.229.1 (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jamie and Tony,

As I mentioned above, I think we should take Db4an’s advice and follow the viral vector wiki page closely for structure. I particularly believe it’s important to add a well-spelled out classification of amplicons, again, to begin:

1: Circular

Extrachromosomal circular amplicons with

a) direct duplications

b) inverted duplications

2: Linear

Linear inverted repeat amplicons (…)

Also, I agree with Tony that technologies should be moved out of the introduction into the Techonology section, so thank you Jamie and Tony for rearranging. I believe this should have a more descriptive title, maybe “Formation of Amplicons via Technologies”, again so we can clearly focus on the amplicon and not the amplification, with links out. My thought is that we can include a denotation of the specific technologies and the types of amplicons that may arise and what they mean/what the amplicons may lead to (via a brief review of the literature). If we systematically add information under each technology (i.e. separate BOLDED and Titled paragraphs like in the viral vector page i.e. 2, 2.1, 2.2) I think it will give our article the structure it’s lacking.

I’m working on some pieces to add to the Technology section and can try to figure out the subsectioning once I accumulate enough content. If it looks or flows strangely, we can certainly update it. Let me know if you agree/disagree as I’m just throwing some ideas out there.

Diane

Dechava1 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey there guys

I'm not going to stand in your way if you want to embark on a significant expansion, but I've done quite a bit of work on the article already and given that the term is coming to an end, I need to focus on other priorities in the course. Going forward, I'll probably restrict my participation to editing passes.

One thing I would like to avoid is trying to clean up grammar and structure on large amounts of new content at the last minute (or even in the last week). IMHO, a large, unpolished article will probably get us a lower grade than a smaller, more polished article. That said, adding new subsections sounds to me like it has the potential for expanding the amount of content considerably... so if you're going to do it, it would be my preference that you complete it in the next week or so. Then I think we need a freeze on new content so we can focus on grammar, flow, and restructuring. My two cents.

As I said, I'll continue to check in pretty regularly, push things around, and comment.

Thanks

Dusty40 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

To update you guys:

-I added an "Amplicon Structure" section as I hope it will clarify that we're focusing on the amplicon and NOT the amplification process. Jamie, I also hope it will help non-science folks like your boss understand clearly what an amplicon is, with links to the terms "direct repeat" and "indirect repeat" to further inform the reader.

- I added a short blurb about our upcoming edits on the Amplicon talk page.

- I attempted to tease through the technology section to accomplish what I suggested above (separate out the technology types and systematically tie in information about amplicons), but as Tony pointed out, this proved to be too large a task. It was optimistic, though I think I'll add this as a to-do on the amplicon talk page for future wikipidians to tackle.

Diane

Dechava1 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(More) Feedback: Reviewer Group (83B)

Hi Guys, I'm also from group 83B. I didn't get a chance to see the Amplicon article before you started, but based on the history, it looks like you've made some big improvements. Great job so far! Db4an covered a lot of potential areas for improvement already, but I would add that the introduction probably needs to be beefed up some as well. I think that going into some detail on how Amplicons are formed and how do the process that you mention (pcr for example) work. Other than that, it really looks like you're on the right track! Carl.d.martin (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Carl, I have addressed your points with the group and we hope to improve accordingly. I agree with you - I'm not sure that when you read the summary for the first time it is completely clear what an amplicon is or what the point of an amplicon is. I am having trouble finding a source that really clearly delineates what an amplicon is/sums up possible uses and applications comprehensibly, which we may be able to use as a model. Still working on it, so please check back soon! Jedwar48 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Unit 12 Progress Report (Draft)

Hi guys,

I made a first pass over our progress report. It's 158 words. The minimum word count requirement seems to be relaxed a bit on this progress report, but I still think it might be too terse as is. It would be great if you could make a pass and add anything I obviously missed.

Thanks! Report follows...

Group 83B made a number of suggestions. Some we viewed as too ambitious, some we implemented immediately, and some of which we are in the process of implementing.

Improvements we’ve made to the article since our last progress report include: implementing some of the suggestions made by group 83B (namely expanding the introductory section and eliminating the examples section), grammar and references cleanup, expounding on natural gene duplication, adding an example of an amplicon used in a popular ligase chain reaction assay, and adding some information on popular technologies that are used with amplicons.

Most of our suggestions to group 83F, who we were assigned to review, pertained to grammatical errors and inconsistencies. They were grateful for the advice.

Going forward we intend to add new subsections drilling down on the major categories of amplicons (also per group 83B’s suggestion). We hope to freeze content changes by the end of November and focus primarily on polishing after that.

Dusty40 (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Great!

Hi all, haven't had a chance to check back until now and it looks like you've made a big improvement since my last comments. The introduction section is a lot more comprehensive. Great job! Carl.d.martin (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking back Carl! I think every one of our team members made one or two changes, so I'm glad you noticed an overall improvement. Yes, we're slowly but surely piecing together and rearranging the content to have a better flow!

Thanks again,

Diane

68.55.75.53 (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Assad

Hi group C, I wanted to say how well the introductory content of your work is relayed. thanks for taking into consideration our review or criticism, even though criticism seems a bit of a harsh word to iterate :) impressive! well done.

Keep it up.

Assad071490 (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

group B review/suggestions

Hello Group C,

I am a member from Group B and we are working on Nucleotide Excision repair as you may see. You have been assigned to us to point out any suggestions or alterations that should be made to your progressive work so far. Your work in my opinion is on the path of nothing less than exemplary. well done group C but I would just like to point out some questions or opinions that you would like to ponder upon for the general enhancement of your group work. I previously was unclear about the draft of your Amplicon section and would've suggested an expansion to it. I see you have made that expansion and it seems better for a background knowledge. I would like to ask if you have found any external sources so far for the formation of an amplicon or its potential use as a model, such as in the PCR work that you have mentioned. If you have not, let me know I would be more than glad to refer you to some E-sources because such inclusion of this content would overall enhance the understanding of an amplicon and what your group is trying to convey in their work.

Speaking of PCR, have a considered a more informative image? the PCR thermocycler is what I am taking about. One that would really contribute to what you are trying to cover in your sections. Also to make your work more progressive, I have seen that one of my group members suggested you cover a few types of the amplicons but are they included in the categories that you have mentioned? the Circular extrachromosomal amplicon and the Linear inverted one? If yes I do not think it would be necessary to make your subsections to broad that would lead to extraneous and irrelevant data. Its better to implement narrow, concise and relevant information for the enhancement. If you would like to cover the two general categories, I would suggest to can briefly cover the types of amplicons within those sections, but also give a briefing of what the categories account for. It is up to you to explain the direct and indirect duplications associated with the circular amplicon. In my opinion this would uniquely distinguish between the aspects of the amplicon that you are trying to cover in your work.

At last, just as Divya mentioned, I would also narrow down the sections. It would make the work look better outlined and relayed in terms of the sequential content. I made the same mistake in my group but divya and carl and I had primarily managed to stay on topic and concise, as well as post the necessary data under its respective outlined section.

Thanks and Well done Group C :) keep up the hard work. Assad071490 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Back from Thanksgiving - Let's get to the progress report!

I took a short break over thanksgiving - so sorry for not answering your progress report post sooner, Tony. I've reposted below, as some of the reviewers have added sections since. I am currently going over the article again in depth and will add to report. Just wanted to keep you updated.

Progress Report Draft updated most recently by Jedwar48 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Group 83B made a number of suggestions for improvement of our article. Some we viewed as too ambitious, some we implemented immediately, and some we are still in the process of evaluating and implementing.

Improvements we’ve made to the article since our last progress report include: implementing some of the suggestions made by group 83B (namely expanding the introductory section and eliminating the examples section), grammar and references cleanup, expounding on natural gene duplication, adding an example of an amplicon used in a popular ligase chain reaction assay, and adding some information on popular technologies that are used with amplicons. We also incorporated a section on Amplicon structure.

As a result of further editing and viewing other related Wikipedia articles, we recognized the importance of a strong and clear description in the introductory paragraph. As it is meant to be a basic, overarching explanation of the subject matter, we realized the introductory paragraph really sets the tone and level of clarity for the entire article. After asking co-workers and family members to reread the article and give us their feedback, we implemented changes to "clean" up the Amplicon description and make it more lay-person-friendly. We hope we have succeeded so far in this area, and will continue to make minor changes to polish it thoroughly.

We also feel that this, and restructuring sections, has improved the flow of the entire article.

We are tinkering with the idea of adding an additional paragraph in the Applications section on natural gene duplication so that all of the "methods" listed in the introductory paragraph have corresponding application points. Going forward we intend to add new subsections drilling down on the major categories of amplicons (also per group 83B’s suggestion). We hope to accomplish this in the next couple weeks to round out the Technology and Applications sections.

In general, we hope to freeze content changes by the end of November and focus primarily on polishing after that.

In terms of conversations with reviewers, while we have had direct contact with our reviewer-group 83B, we haven't had many "hits" on our page by other external editors. We look forward to receiving more comments as we head into the final stages of editing for this semester.

Most of our suggestions to group 83F, who we were assigned to review, pertained to grammatical errors and inconsistencies. They were grateful for the advice. As a group we agree that once those grammatical changes are implemented, their article will be much simpler to edit in terms of actual content. The grammatical/syntax errors truly obscured the real meaning of the information that was already present on the page and that was added to the page by the group. We look forward to editing on a regular basis in the coming weeks.

No problem, Jamie. The progress report is due day after tomorrow. I still think it needs a little expansion, but I'll leave that to you and Diane.

Thanks

Dusty40 (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Tony, made a number of additions and changes to the progress report. I hope you approve! I think we were thinking the exact same way about the applications section - in fact I wrote something almost identical, and then realized that you wrote the same thing at the end of your report! I moved it towards the middle where I touched on the Applications section as well.

Due to Sabbath observance I will not have access to my computer/the internet until 5pm EST tomorrow evening (Saturday). I will check in with you then and hopefully then we can submit the progress report on our other page. I look forward to your feedback and changes!

Thanks, Jamie Jedwar48 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tony and Diane, I just realized that my edits yesterday to the progress report were saved as anonymous because I had opened another window that I wasn't signed into wikipedia under. Sorry about that! The additions were under my name. Just wanted to make sure you approved of the additions. I will email you both now to confirm as the report is due this evening at 11:59.. I believe. Thanks! Jedwar48 (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Last week and a half!

Hi Tony and Diane,

Just wanted to check in with you both as we are approaching the final week of class, and thus the final week to edit our article!

In our progress report we mentioned our interest in adding subsections to the Applications header. Other than that major edit, I assume that we will just spend the rest of the class polishing the final details of the article. Do we also want to change the picture? I know that was mentioned previously.

I was also wondering who inserted the line on "Natural gene duplication can also be benign or even adaptive", and was hoping that if either of you added it, you might be able to add another line that could give this line more context? I'm not totally sure of how it relates, so if a transition of some sort of possible, I think that would be beneficial for the article.

Looking forward to hearing from you both. Thanks! Jedwar48 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I think I had added that last line as a reminder to myself to finish reading another paper to add to the article, though it actually focused on gene amplification-- without much reference to amplicons! I've since deleted the sentence.

Diane Dechava1 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, I agree that the picture should be changed. I've been actively looking for a substitute (especially during my wiki surf for the "See Also" section), but no dice. A good picture would nicely round out our "facelift" of the amplicon article.

DianeDechava1 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Diane,

I did a quick search and found a few images you might be able to use.

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3120705/
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3384353/
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2783652/
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1069007/

I think fig 1 from the first article or fig 2 from the second article would be your best bet. Good luck; Db4an (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure those images are public domain?

I added the line about natural gene duplication. The reason I put it there is because in the paragraph prior I mention that natural gene duplication causes cancer. It's unbalanced to say that without also saying that it can also be beneficial or benign. I'm not sure I like it now that the line is missing but I'm not that attached at this point.

I'm also not attached to the picture. I think a thermocycler is relevant but artsy stuff like that is pretty much invisible to me when I read an article so I have no opinion (other than we should probably have a picture of some kind of people who are attached to that sort of thing).

Dusty40 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes--the copyright information is listed right at the top. I uploaded the first fig from paper 1 as an example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amplicon.png Hopefully that helps if you pick another figure. More information about Wikipedia policy on copyrights can be found here. Best, Db4an (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the image tips! I went ahead and did change that thermocycler. Figure 1 of the first article was certainly the best. Thanks so much for your suggestion! Dechava1 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Polishing of article

Great job everyone as our little article is coming along nicely! I took a few hours to link up all the terms that existed in wikipedia so that we could be good contributing members to the wiki community by providing a networked article where the public can explore topics mentioned in ours by just clicking on terms. Related to this I included a "See Also" section that just naturally followed the research I had done in linking articles. As a side note- we even "adopted" a wiki-"orphaned" article (NASBA) that no one had yet cited/referenced, so that should help traffic in that direction. I went over our grammar once and found just one or two minor misplaced commas!

Feel free to modify-add or delete any "See Also" links! DianeDechava1 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Great Diane, thanks for working on this. I think we're ready to start our final report. I'm going to start drafting it, and am also checking over the grammar/syntax of the article one last time. I think we definitely gave this article a successful "facelift"! What's the consensus with the picture? Happy to discuss this via email if it's easier. Jedwar48 (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Final Progress Report (Draft)

We're at the last leg of our editing. Here is something to start with for our final report. Dr. Ogg did say that this can be short and to the point, so I think this covers what we've accomplished for the most part. Please add/edit as you wish!

Our group made several contributions of significance to this Amplicon article. At the beginning of this course, we found this article as a "stub", too fragmented to provide full coverage on the subject of amplicons. We feel that we have given the article a considerable "face-lift", both in aesthetic structure as well as in content, to bring it closer to meeting the standard of Wikipedia's good-article-criteria.

Some of the changes we made included, but were not limited to:

1. Adding references to already existing sections of the article, where references were previously absent, and fact checking all of the already posted information. Because unsourced material can be subject to removal by Wikipedia, this serviced the article significantly.

2. Improving the value of the article by adding substantial content to provide a more well-rounded, lay-person friendly, and credible account of amplicons. We also verified that all information that we added was technologically up to date; in fact, we created new sections to provide further examples of applications and technologies that deal with amplicons. In gauging quantity, this was most likely our largest contribution.

3. Not only did we add information, but we also sought to incorporate details while thoroughly improving the flow of the article. We improved syntax, grammar, and provided new links so that the reader can fully grasp the technical information while visiting this page. In addition, we worked hard to strengthen our introductory section to set the tone for the article as a whole.

4. We integrated many of the suggestions provided by our reviewer group, 83B, to refine our assigned article even further. Oftentimes, the group provided us with guidelines to follow, and we incorporated the suggestions accordingly. They were particularly helpful in offering constructive criticism for our introductory paragraphs, which we appreciate. Jedwar48 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me as is, Jamie. Thanks.

Dusty40 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! Diane, anything you want to add? I'm going to post this onto the submission page (since I will be unable to do so tomorrow night), so please feel free to make any changes straight onto there. Jedwar48 (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it looks great- it covers all the steps we've taken in a concise and clear way. Thanks!

I made small tweaks and will repost on the actual page. Revamping this wiki article has been a great experience that I feel very proud of being a part of. As sequencing continues to advance I'm sure more and more updates will be made to our work-- and that our article will help many new to the subject understand what an amplicon is. It was great working with you both.

Dechava1 (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Group B Feedback

Hi Group C, finally got a chance to check out your article again. It really looks good, comparing the article as it was before you started work to now is very compelling. The expansion of the existing topics (esp. intro section) and adding sections is really helpful to the reader, more references and the see also section provide better materials to anyone wanting to know about amplicons. Great job! Carl.d.martin (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)