Talk:Molecular-weight size marker

message: * I will add an image of one of the gels i've run at work showing the molecular weight marker.  will381796 00:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think this it is a good idea to announce our current tasks, so that two of us aren't unknowingly working on the same section.  
:I will start to work on the types of molecular markers.Jirwin1097 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to put together the effects of gel conditions section. Madscientist2007 (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking into the history/invention/development. Starting off with looking up patents. If I come across something relevant to your topics I'll post links on the group page. (Or sandbox? not sure which area we'll predominantly use to work.)--Pozmi (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Tasks

message: Hi! I can tell you have done a lot of work on this article and have been thoughtfully condsidering the suggestions made by your reviewers. As such, I am not going to go through making the same comments I have seen the others makes. I think your writing is very good, over all, and you are clearly paying attention to the rules of grammar. I wanted to comment on the DNA Markers section. I was wondering if it would be possible/advisable to consider adding in some diagrams, pictures, and commentary on some of the equipment you would use to perform these assays? I realize that you may have left this out on purpose as you do link to the southern blot page, and I haven't looked at that page. Also, I was thinking it might be good to talk about some of the other assays (beisides southern blot)that use this technology like ELISAs, COMET, etc. It might help you with adding some more "scholarly" references which people have been asking for and it would give you a chance at some really good images. Just my thought. It might make things clearer about how the markers are used and would help people who are completely unfamiliar with the process visualize what is happening.
I hope this is helpful. Keep up the good work!Adimart1 (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Adimart1, Thank you for the great feedback. You certainly provided us with some food for thought, especially in terms of other techniques and technologies for us to look at and potentially incorporate. Also, it would definitely be nice to be able to add some "scholarly" references to our bibliography, especially as they have been hard to come by (hence the lack of them in our bib). Furthermore, as I mentioned to Jim892, I love pictures, diagrams, etc. and what they can bring to an article such as this. Thanks again for the wonderful suggestions. Please feel free to contact us if you think of anything else. The best of luck to you and WillPugart with your article! Madscientist2007 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Adimart1 

message: You have a bunch of DNA ladder images on User:Madscientist2007/sandbox and I think they would look GREAT in the DNA section.  That section has lots of prose and it could use 1 or 2 or even 3 pictures.  I especially like the colorful image that "glows". Keep in mind that you can limit the display size of the image with "|300px|" or whatever size (large or small) seems right.  You could really dress that section up with multiple images and it would also improve the "first impression". --Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One of my partners found the wonderful images that are in my sandbox. I agree that pictures would dress up the DNA section, and the article in general.  While our topic is not nearly as mechanistic in scope as other ones, pictures, etc. certainly help to elaborate on the text regardless. They also add to the accessibility of an article, especially one of a technical nature. I am a very visual learner, and as such, I love pictures, diagrams, illustrations, tables, graphs, charts, etc. alongside textual information. My group will certainly have to keep this suggestion in mind. Thanks,Madscientist2007 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Impressive expansion of such a stub. An extra example for you to consider:
* gel electrophoresis of stained carbohydrates (e.g. Kosik O, Bromley JR, Busse-Wicher M, Zhang Z, Dupree P. (2012) Studies of enzymatic cleavage of cellulose using polysaccharide analysis by carbohydrate gel electrophoresis (PACE). Methods Enzymol.510:51-67)
Keep up the good work, T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the suggestion!Madscientist2007 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief suggestion 

message: Great work on this article! I compared the article at the beginning of the assignment to the one that is currently up, and there has been an impressive amount of work. I like the organization of the article and the illustrations you have chosen to incorporate. The writing is clear and has a flow to it, which results in easy reading and easy comprehension.  I think you have done a wonderful job explaining a complex subject clearly and without any bias one way or another. A couple of suggestions are:
*You use the letters MW. Although I know it stands for molecular weight, I think it would be useful to define this somehow, such as molecular "weight (MW)" so that the reader is aware that that is what you mean. 
*If I wasn't familiar first hand with how molecular weight size markers and gel conditions are related, I would be a little lost reading these sections. A good idea would be to make it clear to the reader how these two topics relate. Right now what is making the link in my head is first-hand experience, but for those who don't have this, it might be a little difficult to bridge the gap with the information as it is.
*Do we have a reference for the shelf life of RNA markers?
This is a work in progress, and so I am excited to see how it will turn out. Keep it up! Opalite3579 (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your helpful feedback. I agree that "MW" should be defined in the beginning of the article to avoid confusion. Also, addressing your second point, we should work on making this section more reader friendly for those not familiar with this topic.Jirwin1097 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Opalite3579, Thank you for the feedback. I agree with both points. Concerning the second point, given our exposure to the topic, especially over the last few most months, it is all too easy for us to take for granted the familiarity, or there lack of, of our audience with this subject.Madscientist2007 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi James and Pinar, As we work to add the final touches to this article, we should try to take a step back and take a last look at this article from the perspective of someone who knows little, or even nothing, of our topic, in an effort to make this article as user friendly as possible.Madscientist2007 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi James, Thank you for getting the final progress report started! Madscientist2007 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Opalite3579

message: Substituted at 21:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment