![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Would like to see an over all improvement of this article - specifically:
Aaron.aude ( talk) 02:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC) I would like to add in the following graphic/flash animation. Any concerns? http://outreach.mcb.harvard.edu/animations/preloaderStemCells.swf
Aaron.aude (
talk) 01:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the work to improve this article; you have presented difficult-to-understand scientific concepts in a way that is easy to follow. Also important is your neutral point of view. Please feel free to incorporate any of the recommendations below. The biggest point of feedback is to consider approaching the material with the assumption that the reader has no science background, but instead has stumbled on the article after reading the term "cell potency" in a basic science article on a major news site, and is now looking for more information. At times, the material makes heavy use of jargon and assumes the reader has some background in the information. Other points for consideration:
Thanks again for the work you've done already; best of luck. Cheers, Davidwhanks ( talk) 03:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Aaron.aude ( talk) 02:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys! Great work so far! I've gone through and done a pretty thorough review for you. One thing before I dive into the rest - if you want to use a source that you don't have full text for, ask me and I can see if Loyola subscribes to a database with that article. I've found that sometimes universities have different specialty journal subscriptions for whatever reason. Anyways, I've bulleted the review so you can respond to comments individually. I'd prefer that you respond here but you can also ask me questions on my talk page or via email as per usual. I know this can be pretty overwhelming with the number of things to do, but most of them are small and easily taken care of. You can do it! :)
That's all I have for you. Good luck! Keilana| Parlez ici 22:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Aaron.aude ( talk) 02:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
We took most (almost all) of your feedback into consideration and have addressed as much as possible at this time. We're working on updating cell potency iteratively and expect to wrap-up in two weeks. Yours were great points and suggestions, and we differed with you on a few of them. With regard to technical terms, cell potency has many. Most reviewers have suggested explaining these terms (which would definitely be ideal), but we are struggling with which to define, which to link and which to keep as-is. Defining each one might overwhelm the article.
As such, we think that choosing key ones to define might work and reduce clutter in the article. On a different note, the induced pluripotency subsection is not a main article - in fact, the main article is found in WikiPedia under “Induced pluripotent stem cells”. We can add more details about things like medical uses for them for example, but we’re not planning to be exhaustive about including every detail. This main pluriopotency article is broader—as it should be, and goes into a lot more details.
One other point, we believe that our article attempts to draw comparisons between the different cell types - within the spectrum. As a result, we're attempting to provide a theme of comparison in the article, and allow the various parent (or sub sections) to define more of the detail. A good example of this is the range from totipotency to pluriopotency. Lots of good research, literature, etc., but our article should (we believe) describe the differences between these cell types rather than exhaustive definitions of each.
Aaron.aude ( talk) 03:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Overall this article is very well written with clear and concise content, easy to read, and flows well from the start of the article to the end as an overall comparison of cell potency. As a lot of recommendations have been made in the recent critiques, I realize that a lot of this is in progress. I read through your comments and agree with what's been said thus far. Here's what I have to add:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stem_cells_maturing_into_blood_cells_and_precursor_cells.jpg
Best of luck for our final week of this project! Great job! Jberendt ( talk) 04:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the contributors did a good job improving this article. Much has already been discussed in terms of improvements to the page in the earlier comments section, but I will comment on the areas that still stand out to me.
I like the picture used at the beginning of the article. I think that it does a good job of being a visual for people who might be less familiar with the topic. The divisions of the page worked well and the overall difference between types of potency was explained well. There were many areas that I feel would be difficult for someone without knowledge of biology to understand. It started to get a little too technical around the part about transcription factors and throughout the rest of the article. I think a few extra sentences here and there explaining the more scientific terms would help the lay person to be able to understand more of this article.
I also agree with another reviewers comment that the topic of C. elegens, zebrafish, and humans could be explored further. The two sentences introduce the topic, but then readers are left wondering.
There were a good number of references and I felt like most statements were backed up with a citation.
I also think the contributors did a good job of staying neutral on a topic that often introduces many opinions/bias.
The descriptions of the types of potency seemed to get shorter and shorter as the page went on. There was so much information in the beginning and I felt like the last two sections were not as thorough as the beginning of the article. I don't know if this was do to less research available or if the contributors felt there was enough information covering the subject of unipotency under precursor cell. Jbmcgregor ( talk) 22:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I have updated/edited the epigenetic section under induced pluripotency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.126.65 ( talk) 22:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
No mentioning of plant cells at all?? -- 2A02:8071:B693:BE00:50A5:D605:C9DB:B8AA ( talk) 02:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Given the extension and current relevance of the subject, I think it would be useful to have a main article dedicated to "Pluripotency", where the concepts of induced pluripotency, naive vs. primed, etc, could be further developed. Maybe it would make more sense to have some of the content from this article in that one instead? I'll probably have time to work on that within a few weeks, but wanted to get some feedback on the idea and possible advice, since it would be my first article. Also, if anyone feels like helping me with the task, you're more than welcome! Jfpascoal ( talk) 17:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sanjana Kancharla (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Allieplaton ( talk) 15:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The text on 'antimalarial drug discovery' and 'generation of organs' doesn't seem to belong to this article and nor does it look too relevant to the topic of this page (cell potency); the text has most likely been copy pasted from somewhere else judging by the unlinked citation in the text, the reference cited at the end has no relation to and mentions nothing about what has been written. Thelakeman25 ( talk) 13:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
How can I access it 105.185.59.67 ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Would like to see an over all improvement of this article - specifically:
Aaron.aude ( talk) 02:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC) I would like to add in the following graphic/flash animation. Any concerns? http://outreach.mcb.harvard.edu/animations/preloaderStemCells.swf
Aaron.aude (
talk) 01:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the work to improve this article; you have presented difficult-to-understand scientific concepts in a way that is easy to follow. Also important is your neutral point of view. Please feel free to incorporate any of the recommendations below. The biggest point of feedback is to consider approaching the material with the assumption that the reader has no science background, but instead has stumbled on the article after reading the term "cell potency" in a basic science article on a major news site, and is now looking for more information. At times, the material makes heavy use of jargon and assumes the reader has some background in the information. Other points for consideration:
Thanks again for the work you've done already; best of luck. Cheers, Davidwhanks ( talk) 03:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Aaron.aude ( talk) 02:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys! Great work so far! I've gone through and done a pretty thorough review for you. One thing before I dive into the rest - if you want to use a source that you don't have full text for, ask me and I can see if Loyola subscribes to a database with that article. I've found that sometimes universities have different specialty journal subscriptions for whatever reason. Anyways, I've bulleted the review so you can respond to comments individually. I'd prefer that you respond here but you can also ask me questions on my talk page or via email as per usual. I know this can be pretty overwhelming with the number of things to do, but most of them are small and easily taken care of. You can do it! :)
That's all I have for you. Good luck! Keilana| Parlez ici 22:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Aaron.aude ( talk) 02:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
We took most (almost all) of your feedback into consideration and have addressed as much as possible at this time. We're working on updating cell potency iteratively and expect to wrap-up in two weeks. Yours were great points and suggestions, and we differed with you on a few of them. With regard to technical terms, cell potency has many. Most reviewers have suggested explaining these terms (which would definitely be ideal), but we are struggling with which to define, which to link and which to keep as-is. Defining each one might overwhelm the article.
As such, we think that choosing key ones to define might work and reduce clutter in the article. On a different note, the induced pluripotency subsection is not a main article - in fact, the main article is found in WikiPedia under “Induced pluripotent stem cells”. We can add more details about things like medical uses for them for example, but we’re not planning to be exhaustive about including every detail. This main pluriopotency article is broader—as it should be, and goes into a lot more details.
One other point, we believe that our article attempts to draw comparisons between the different cell types - within the spectrum. As a result, we're attempting to provide a theme of comparison in the article, and allow the various parent (or sub sections) to define more of the detail. A good example of this is the range from totipotency to pluriopotency. Lots of good research, literature, etc., but our article should (we believe) describe the differences between these cell types rather than exhaustive definitions of each.
Aaron.aude ( talk) 03:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Overall this article is very well written with clear and concise content, easy to read, and flows well from the start of the article to the end as an overall comparison of cell potency. As a lot of recommendations have been made in the recent critiques, I realize that a lot of this is in progress. I read through your comments and agree with what's been said thus far. Here's what I have to add:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stem_cells_maturing_into_blood_cells_and_precursor_cells.jpg
Best of luck for our final week of this project! Great job! Jberendt ( talk) 04:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the contributors did a good job improving this article. Much has already been discussed in terms of improvements to the page in the earlier comments section, but I will comment on the areas that still stand out to me.
I like the picture used at the beginning of the article. I think that it does a good job of being a visual for people who might be less familiar with the topic. The divisions of the page worked well and the overall difference between types of potency was explained well. There were many areas that I feel would be difficult for someone without knowledge of biology to understand. It started to get a little too technical around the part about transcription factors and throughout the rest of the article. I think a few extra sentences here and there explaining the more scientific terms would help the lay person to be able to understand more of this article.
I also agree with another reviewers comment that the topic of C. elegens, zebrafish, and humans could be explored further. The two sentences introduce the topic, but then readers are left wondering.
There were a good number of references and I felt like most statements were backed up with a citation.
I also think the contributors did a good job of staying neutral on a topic that often introduces many opinions/bias.
The descriptions of the types of potency seemed to get shorter and shorter as the page went on. There was so much information in the beginning and I felt like the last two sections were not as thorough as the beginning of the article. I don't know if this was do to less research available or if the contributors felt there was enough information covering the subject of unipotency under precursor cell. Jbmcgregor ( talk) 22:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I have updated/edited the epigenetic section under induced pluripotency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.126.65 ( talk) 22:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
No mentioning of plant cells at all?? -- 2A02:8071:B693:BE00:50A5:D605:C9DB:B8AA ( talk) 02:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Given the extension and current relevance of the subject, I think it would be useful to have a main article dedicated to "Pluripotency", where the concepts of induced pluripotency, naive vs. primed, etc, could be further developed. Maybe it would make more sense to have some of the content from this article in that one instead? I'll probably have time to work on that within a few weeks, but wanted to get some feedback on the idea and possible advice, since it would be my first article. Also, if anyone feels like helping me with the task, you're more than welcome! Jfpascoal ( talk) 17:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sanjana Kancharla (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Allieplaton ( talk) 15:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The text on 'antimalarial drug discovery' and 'generation of organs' doesn't seem to belong to this article and nor does it look too relevant to the topic of this page (cell potency); the text has most likely been copy pasted from somewhere else judging by the unlinked citation in the text, the reference cited at the end has no relation to and mentions nothing about what has been written. Thelakeman25 ( talk) 13:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
How can I access it 105.185.59.67 ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)