Talk:CH391L/S14/BiologicalpartsandtheiGEMregistry
- --Dennis Mishler (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2014 (CST) Alex, it might be nice to link to Ella's wiki when you talk about BioBricks and the restriction enzymes found in the prefix and suffix. Perhaps you could say something along the lines of "for more information... [link]"?
- --Aeg2338 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2014 (CST) This is a very good idea. I ended up just linking at the word BioBrick in the introduction and at the beginning of the BioBrick section, as well as linking to the restriction endonuclease section in Ella's BioBrick page at the phrase "restriction enzyme."
- --Dennis Mishler (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2014 (CST) In the iGEM section, what about the assembly standards? Are these important?
- --Dst465 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2014 (CST)It might be usefull to create links from the words Promoters, Ribosome Binding Sites, Coding Sequences, and Terminators to allow a quick reference. So a person could click on them to get a quick explanation of what they are. You might link them to a relevant wiki.
- --Ew6977 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2014 (CST) Potentially add an example of the '4 pages related to a BioBrick". A brief example that shows what information is included in each section (maybe add a picture of what the pages look like?) You may even consider doing this with the BBa_J45001 that you mentioned in a previous section to really tie together the whole section!
- --Nathan Shin (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2014 (CST) Perhaps adding a section about the process of submitting a part to the iGEM registry would be beneficial, as well as some additional information regarding the process of ordering parts (i.e What does it come in? What do you do once you receive the parts?)
- --ajv684 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2014 (CST) I find the wiki page very well laid out and in general the topic serves well the purpose of introducing the lay reader to the topic. However, I would've like to see a figure to explain the concept of standardization since it is a bit abstract and difficult to understand.
- --Ashley Kessel (talk) 2:33, 31 January 2014 (CST) The wiki page is very well laid out and the content is very detailed. Perhaps in the introduction it would be worthwhile to mention that the Biobrick is not effected by other parts of the DNA.
- --Dennis Mishler (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2014 (CST) Mindy's critique
Overall Format and structure: Overall this seems to be organized very well- it is easy to follow and very understandable with appropriate language that suits readers not familiar with the topic. Additionally the bold headings were helpful to draw the readers eyes to particular important parts. There were only two parts that were slightly confusing. First was the placement of standardization, which granted is something that has been established for a long time, but after reading the history introduction seems slightly out of place- perhaps a better transition sentence would help. Secondly, there were a number of run-on sentences, and sentences that might have sounded better inverted. For example, the first History sentence might sound better if flipped around, and the last sentence of Standardization could possibly be shortened or split. However, despite these minor issues, no grave misspellings, errors in syntax, or punctuation were evident.
Introduction and background material: Most of the critique of this section is aforementioned- in general these sections were successful in presenting a clear view of the background. Of note, the repetition of the definition of BioBricks in the History section after it had already been presented in the Introduction was actually very helpful, especially for those not too familiar with BioBricks.
Methods and main body/concepts: These sections are also very easy to understand- the only possible adjustment might be a link to the work “restriction enzyme” to guide confused readers to an appropriate page that explains what these are. While it should be gleaned from the text it might be helpful just as an aside. The example of the wintergreen compound was also a good thing to include, perhaps even another example would improve it even more. Alternatively, an example of how something integrated into a plasmid could have a change of function (which would not agree with the BioBricks concept) might be illustrative as well.
Relation to iGEM and future directions: Obviously this particular topic was extremely well suited for an iGEM section, and it is helpful that both the catalog and the registry have links embedded. I do agree with the comments in the comments section that suggest expanding the links to the other parts of this section, since its very key in this topic readers might be searching for any or all of the subheadings listed. The future directions part could possibly use a bit of expansion on current issues and problems involving the BioBricks, but overall both of these sections provide a good view of the topics.
Figures, Figure legends, and citations: The citations are very well done, very easy to understand and remind the reader what they involve. Both figures are also very clear and well labeled. A possible third figure might include an overall step process like a flow chart or similar diagram, indicating the steps from natural product to BioBrick to function in the new biological system, but this is not imperative.
- --Aeg2338 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2014 (CST) I followed these critiques as best I could. I found that they were all very useful ideas, and I did what I could to do them justice. There were two I did not follow: I left off the figure depicting the overall process for the same reason I detailed above: the one image I do have of it is best seen large, which is difficult to do on a wiki page. I also left off the extra example of a BioBrick for lack of time, though I also think it would be a good idea.
