Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AP Biology 2008/Archive 1

Talk page

The talk page is open for discussion. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Mr. Butler...I was wondering how exactly do I put my article on the main page. My topic is Lymphangioma, I found it as a stub and copied it into my sandbox. I did just a little bit to it just to see what it was going to do. I saved it to my sandbox and then went back to were that stub was and edited that page. Was that what I was suppose to do? I was also wondering since I put it in my sandbox I thought that it would then show up next to my user name like the others who have already chosen a topic. How do I make it offically the topic I am doing? --Amitampocco (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Hey Mr. Butler, my topic is Brain ischemia...If you have any objections to this topic please let me know. --Saunc2011 (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi Mr. Butler, my new topic is now theMacaroni Penguin...--LNG123 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Mr. Butler... I have noticed that one of the other students have chosen a topic on a type of shark... I was wondering if it was alright if we did that as our topic (a type of animal)... I was hoping to do mine on a siberian tiger... Dorkstar17 (talk)

Is that one not already GA worthy? You would think it would have a following. I'll look it over and get back with you in class. --JimmyButler (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Mr. Butler, I was just wondering if as part of our references we could include links to journals explaining experiments that have been performed on animals and such. --Saunc2011 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to answer that question without seeing the actual article.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Hey Mr. Butler. I'm just a little bit confused as to how you want us to find an article to add an internal link to... So if you could please give me some instruction as to how to go about doing this, I would really appreciate it. Thanks --Somertime02 (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Added an addendum to Step 5 (below) which we give you a list of articles that need referencing. --JimmyButler (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Hey Mr. Butler! I tried to site a source and I was just wondering if you would look it over to make sure I did it right! If you click here the reference I added is the only one there since I did choose it from that list! It is Willy Wonka. If you would please let me know whether I did it right or wrong that'd be great! Thank you! --Saunc2011 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Will you check out my citation for Nevada County, California's page for me? Please and thank you. --Somertime02 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Oh is there something wrong with my reference? haha. --Saunc2011 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Step 1: Creating your account

I trust that all of you will have an account established by 8/29/08.

• This link will provide guidance regarding creating an account: Help:Logging in
• You cannot create an account from school; as with most public institutions we have been blocked. However, once you create an account you will gain access and be able to edit in class.
• I do reserve the right to censorship as certain names might be inappropriate; however, I encourage creativity and originality - much will be inferred by your name selection. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that there is an official policy on usernames - Wikipedia:Username policy - and that inappropriate usernames won't be allowed by Wikipedia...not to mention JimmyButler (talk · contribs). Also, if anyone is having trouble creating an account, don't be silent. Things can be done...see What to do if you can't create an account?. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Step 2: User Page

The next step along our journey is to "dress up" the user page. It will serve as an excellent location for fine tuning some of the basic edit skills. Wikipedia:User Page Design Center should serve as an excellent resource for this part of our project. The deadline is set for 9/5/08.

• Write a descriptive biography which allows others to develop a sense of who you are. This might include your personal interest, future goals as well as your current station in life. Maintain anonymity!
• Incorporate two images which make a visual statement about you as an editor. The method is outlined most clearly in the tip of the day.
• Incorporate the obligatory User boxes. They will add an element of interest and occasionally humor to your user page. Keep the number reasonable --- not more than 15.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Step 3 Select Your Topic

The most important decision you will make influencing your success on this assignment will be topic selection. An excellent source for articles in need of your attention is Category:Biology stubs. This represent an endless list of biology-related topics. Some considerations in your selection might be:

• Select a topic that interest you.
• Perform an informal search to ascertain that there are adequate references from which to draw on.
• Select a topic that not is embroiled in controversy ... if you wish to maintain your sanity. Such as Sarah Palin.
• Nothing too narrow and technical, for instance macromolecular crowding or invadopodia would be very hard to write a Good Article (GA) on, since much of the source material will be very technical and unapproachable, but writing a GA on adenosine triphosphate or amino acids was not that hard, since the topics are much more general and you can give a broad overview.
• Additional concerns ...

Others may be adding to this list based on their own personal experiences. The deadline to commit is September 26, 2008.--JimmyButler (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Step 4: Research Topic

Perhaps the most challenging step is to locate an adequate number of resources that will enable you to expand your topic into a full-fledge article. There are many guidelines and special requirements for what constitutes an acceptable reference. They will be listed at the end of this post. My expectations (thus grade) requires a list of 40 reference posted in a special section that you will create on your entries discussion page. You may not use them all in the actual article; however, it is important that you develop a sense of what information is out there as well as who are the experts in your field of interest. This may also mark the point that you rethink your topic selection!

• Locate 40 references
• Hyperlink them - where possible - to the actual web site.
• This is not a task for your mentors --- so don't ask them.
• For those obsessed with Google ... try Google Scholar [1]. It knocks out many of the less than scholarly web sites.
• The deadline is September 26. I'll be checking Saturday morning (9/27/08)

Please limit comments in this section to reduce clutter --JimmyButler (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Step 5: Insert a Citation

It is time to edit something. An actual article - not just your talk page. We will build our confidence by inserting a citation. In fact, the most common deficiency of articles in Wikipedia is the lack of citations. So go find a "citation needed" in any article in Wikipedia or perhaps in your topic of choice and give credit where credit is due.

The challenge of course, will be formatting. There are templates. The issue is far to complex to address here. But listen in class as we discuss formatting options, templates, etc...

Max has worked hard in breaking the code on this and will serve as an enormously valuable resource for all of us.

This may help as well. Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates --JimmyButler (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of articles that are poorly cited - about 7,000 to chose from! [2] Pick your area of expertise and improve by citing information within it.

Step 6: The Line in the Sand

The lack of active editing and commitment of your time to the project leads me to believe that intermittent dead-lines are necessary. With one grading period transpired (six weeks) and so many with less than 5 edits to their article - clearly you need the pressure of a clock. Here is the time line then. The article must be submitted for a peer review no later (hopefully earlier) than 11-19-08. That is a full grading period. The clock is now ticking. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

I have worked on a few FAs, and have one GA to my credit (the infamous Bees and toxic chemicals). I would suggest that students follow the following path:

1. Find a subject you like, or have heard some fun things about. For example, I am quite interested in aphids, since they have many peculiar features and are found almost everywhere. Aphids are by some accounts the most destructive insect pests on planet earth, destroying many billions of dollars of crops per year. The aphid article and many of the sub-articles and associated articles might be interesting places for a student interested in bugs. A "red link" (i.e., a name that appears in red) means that we need to create an article from scratch. Many of the "blue links" (blue names, i.e., clickable wikilinks) are just stub articles, and need considerable work. However, many of these could easily be brought up to GA status with a bit of effort.
2. Go to the library and read all you can about the subject. Dig around on the web and read the articles. I typically will do a google search on the topic, and read the highest ranking 100 or even 200 articles on the subject.
3. Make notes about interesting things you learn. You can do this on a sandbox page on Wikipedia, or in another computer file.
4. Start adding the information you have found in some organized fashion to the article. Try to follow the general format of other articles on Wikipedia. If you don't know what to do, just do your best and ask for help. Others will assist you.
5. Polish your work by going over and over it dozens of times, fixing mistakes and improving the English.
6. Make your article self-contained, but use wikilinks to other relevant Wikipedia articles to direct the readers to more information.
7. Add footnotes and references for the material you add so you appear to be scholarly. You will never make it to GA or FA status without plenty of well cited references.

Good luck!--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This essay follows up what Filll (talk · contribs)says and is worth reading 'cause it is funny: A fool's guide to writing a featured article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Worth a look

One among your peers has stepped out with guns blazing. User:FoodPuma The standard has been set for step 2 of this project. Visit FoodPuma who early in the game has raised my expectations! --JimmyButler (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) with a little help from his friend! Oh well ... yet again the value of collaboration is demonstrated. As for you User:FoodPuma --- your assignment is to share your new found understanding with the others! --JimmyButler (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter

Be Bold. Declare your intent publicly to create a FA! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Need Help? Look Here.

If anyone wants help with their bio page, or is having troubles with wikipedia's screwy formatting stuff then just post a reply at my talk page User_talk:FoodPuma #Help (for others). I will be glad to explain how to work the kinks out!--FoodPuma (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Banner

I've created a talk page banner for your project. Please copy and paste {{APBiology2008}} into the upper part of the talk page. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Should you edit the article itself, or work in your sandbox?

Hi guys ... Taking a look at the articles that you have "adopted", I see that some of you say you are planning to work on an improved version in your own user space (in your sandbox, or whatever), and then release it into the main space (to replace the existing article) when you're finished. It can certainly be useful to draft stuff in your sandbox, but I'd be wary of keeping everything there. By all means work on the "perfect" version in the sandbox, but I would strongly recommend tinkering with the existing article, and introducing your improvements there bit by bit, as you proceed. That way, (a) people who are watching the article will have time to get used to the changes, and the new version won't be as likely to be met with hostility when you release it on an unsuspecting world; and (b) you'll prompt others to chip in with suggestions and improvements - and you can transfer (some of) these to the sandbox version as you proceed. Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you'll find that an article that is being visibly worked on will pull in collaborators. You won't like everything that others do to "your" article, but both the process and the end result will be greatly improved by the collaboration. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How much can we help?

I've had a talk with User:Wikitrevor and we have decided that Introduction to microbiology could be a good subject. How much can I help with this - advice and feedback only, or can I edit it as well? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a blurb on the Project Page (Mentors) in attempt to answer that question. The big picture goal is for the students to feel a sense of accomplishment when the article reaches GA. In general --- feel free to point out the errors and allow them to struggle with solutions. The exception being formatting. Learning HTML is not one our goals so feel free to clean up any organizational / formatting mess. This is a research project; one of the steps will be to generate an extensive list of references. Some guidance of citation format (show them how) and verification of credibility of sources would also be a huge assistance. Admittedly, this project for me is somewhat experimental and no doubt will involve a major learning curve for all involved.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Create a list for those willing to help with project

Perhaps we could create a list of Wikipedians willing to help with the project and list their expertise? Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

VivaLaLacy (talk · contribs) has lassoed me into helping. I will make my limited expertise available to anyone else who needs assistance. As I told VivaLaLacy, biology is not my forte, but I'll do my best to assist. --Moni3 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already been helping a bit and will continue to do so. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a little blurb on the Main page regarding mentors. Perhaps those who have agreed to provide oversight could add their name next to the students along with the Wiki topic. If anyone is willing to adopt one of the little buggers; feel free to browse their discussion page and get a feel for their level of commitment. If you see a topic of interest; feel free to introduce yourself. The students are held accountable for their success - which includes their ability to work with other authors on the project.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to help adopt a student. I don't usually work in science-related articles, but I have experience preparing articles for both GA and FA, and I am a frequent FA reviewer, so I know what to look for. Any student who would like a bit of guidance is welcome to contact me on my talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Count me in! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Any student who wants me as a mentor (or any student that your teacher thinks deserving/needing one) should likewise drop a note on my user page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, what jbm said. I'm no biologist, but can help out with article writing/formatting/assessment etc. My talk page is linked in my signature. EyeSerene^talk 09:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Here is the link for the adoption page mentioned in class: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. This is a list of user's willing to adopt. I just glanced throught it, reading the notes, until I found someone with high credentials who was available to help. After finding that user I left a comment on their talk page regarding our project, my goal, and my article. The user will most likely reply either on your talk page or theirs. You may not even have to search the pages of wikipedia seeing how one person has already volunteered there services, User:Karanacs, and I'm sure the number will increase as the project develops. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if people are not on that list, if you look at the edit history of articles related to your subject you may find an expert who you can ask advice from. People are usually very willing to help if you are clear about how they can help. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool article

Vault (organelle), maybe not a good choice for you guys since all that is known on this is published in the scientific literature and these papers are a little on the densely-written side, but it is certainly both important and mysterious! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Step 3 Select Your Topic

The most important decision you will make influencing your success on this assignment will be topic selection. An excellent source for articles in need of your attention is Category:Biology stubs. This represent an endless list of biology-related topics. Some considerations in your selection might be:

• Select a topic that interest you.
• Perform an informal search to ascertain that there are adequate references from which to draw on.
• Select a topic that not is embroiled in controversy ... if you wish to maintain your sanity. Such as Sarah Palin.
• Nothing too narrow and technical, for instance macromolecular crowding or invadopodia would be very hard to write a Good Article (GA) on, since much of the source material will be very technical and unapproachable, but writing a GA on adenosine triphosphate or amino acids was not that hard, since the topics are much more general and you can give a broad overview.
• Additional concerns ...

Others may be adding to this list based on their own personal experiences. The deadline to commit is September 26, 2008.--JimmyButler (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation Help

I've taken the liberty to transfer some helpful advice from my talk page that could save you hours of work. When we get to the citation of references; remind me to demonstrate these resource to you in class to be certain all know how they work.--JimmyButler (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me butting in -- among medical wiki editors, the preference is usually to discourage adding unlinked items at the end of the article, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Citing_medical_sources. Instead, whether it is a book, journal, or website, you should try to find a specific statement in the wiki page that the resource supports (or add a new statement if none exists), and then add a reference to that resource using ref tags. (This website can save a lot of time -- for example, you can type in an ISBN number for a book and get back every field but the page number.) --Arcadian

and

Another Ref resource is here - be careful, it does not clear cache. KillerChihuahua

Human body

OK, AP Biology 2008 project people, this is your chance to defend one of your own. Form your own Wiki Cabal, and force a merger to your projects benefit. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I came across that last night actually and made a post about it on the Human body page. Did you see that and repost here or was that coincidence?! ha! FoodPuma (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I am voting "no" on the merger simply b/c anatomy is but one sub-topic of the Human body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FoodPuma (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Feeling Patriotic????????

We have been challenged! Raise the flag...now its personal!!!!! Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North of the Rio Grande. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic Picks

I would like to do my project on Marine vertebrate. Tell me if there is a problem or concern with this topic.--Desert fox2009 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't get more of a stub than that one!--65.184.210.214 (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I've chosen my topic, Coronary Artery Disease. I think I was supposed to let you know this?? If there is a problem with this topic, let me know. I put the stub in my sandbox, and I'm going to start editing now.--LNG123 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bless you my child.... I'll look it over and give you feedback in class. --65.184.210.214 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw this line: Over 451,000 Americans die of coronary heart disease every year about a topic that consist of something like two sentences?!!!. It is either a major topic in serious neglect or their is a counterpart already out there that covers it under a different heading. We might need to ask around to see which.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm liking Dorkstar17 (talk · contribs · count) / Mentor: TimVickers / Topic: Anaconda selection. He found one more mainstream but in need of help. Should be a fun topic.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's one for the record books Syntrophy: Another example are the many organisms that feast on faeces or dung. Dondevoy01 (talk · contribs · count) / Mentor: / Topic: Syntrophy What ever floats your boat ... but who's gonna mentor that one with you!!!--JimmyButler (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

biology ideas

OK folks, for an easier road to GA or FA, it may be easier to choose an organism which has a form of template. Many species of critters are Featured Articles, everything from American Goldfinch, to White-breasted Nuthatch, and Blue Whale, to Lion. Maybe choose some critter out of your neck of the woods you'd like to tell the world about. The essential thing is to get proper sources which will mean a visit to the library and using some technical sources. I am happy to see what folks come up with. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think choosing a critter or a bit of vegetation is the best strategy. If you want a very topical critter (well, maybe not a critter but a fungus), how about Stem rust. The article is at start class...and a particular strain of stem rust - Ug99 - could threaten us all. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You could also choose one of your state's official biological specimens. Apparently, North Carolina has deemed all sorts of things as official

• State flower: Dogwood
• State bird: Cardinal
• State tree: Pine
• State shell: Scotch bonnet
• State mammal: Eastern Grey Squirrel
• State salt water fish: Red Drum (also known as the Channel bass)
• State insect: European honey bee
• State reptile: Eastern Box Turtle
• State beverage: Milk
• State dog: Plott Hound
• State vegetable: Sweet potato
• State red berry: Strawberry
• State blue berry: Blueberry
• State fruit: Scuppernong grape
• State wildflower: Carolina Lily
• State Christmas tree: Fraser Fir
• State carnivorous plant: Venus Flytrap
• State freshwater trout: Southern Appalachian Brook Trout

If you brought any of these up to FA status you'd probably get some sort of official North Carolina shout-out. Note that only the cardinal article is GA...everything else is fair game. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Plott hound -- I did not know that! The red drum is screaming for attention from those of you who are avid fisherman. I've walked the beaches for many years and have yet to see a scotch bonnet - yet it is apparently our state shell. Do Canadians create such list? --JimmyButler (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not to the extent North Carolinians do! There are only three biological specimen's on the British Columbia official list. They are provincial tree: Western red cedar, provincial bird: Steller's Jay, and provincial flower: Pacific dogwood. It's interesting that dogwood turns up on both lists! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Observations and pointers

Not sure I'ld agree with advice to adding up to 15 "obligatory User boxes" to user pages, as there is no requirement to use any userboxes at all - perhaps rephrase that to "ubiquitous User boxes"? Only about a year ago there was a proposal to remove all userboxes which thankfully was rejected: it is useful to know a little of a user's experience (I'll reply somewhat differently to a 10 year old than to a university professor who wrote the standard textbook on the subject we are discussing) and editing interests (are they a creator of illustrations for wikipedia, a copyeditor, a template designer etc). But whether you own a cat/dog/alligator as a pet or wish to proclaim your favourite TV cop-show is really of no interest :-)

You might want to consider adding some additional links on your project page:

• WP:BIOL / WP:MED / WP:PHARM are the links for Wikiprojects for Biology/Medicine/Pharmacy and useful places to seek help or comment from like-minded & like-interested editors on your individual contributions and "work-in-progress"
• In addition to main polices of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviation WP:MOS) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (abbreviation WP:RS), there are additional guidelines to give further help of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) (abbreviation WP:MEDMOS) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) (abbreviation WP:MEDRS) which may be helpful.
• For biomedical papers, the best collection of abstracts is held at US NIH's PubMed which may be freely accessed
  • The search link is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/
  • Some abstracts have links to the original full paper (at the relevant journal's own website or a copy held at PubMed Central).
  • As an example, have a look at searching on "Osteochondritis dessecans" - the page icons on the left of each listing (hover mouse pointer over icon for popup explanation) indicate if just an abstract, or a free full version link is included in the individual abstract pages (click on linked author's list to go to an abstract).
  • The 1496 number of hits can be daunting, so look at how adding the words "review" & "literature" to the keywords to search upon ([3]) gives a more selective list of 204 hits, and on the first page of 20 hits, a number of good candidates for giving us an overview of this unfamiliar topic.
• From the PubMed PMID abstract number, Diberri's template mark-up tool at http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/ will generate for you the full citation mark-up for {{cite journal}} and with the <ref></ref> tags if so chosen. (Diberri's tool also works with book ISBN's)
  • Alternatively you might wish to link (or save as a browser favorite) Diberri's tool preset with the adding of ref tags and URLs as per:
    http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmed_id&add_ref_tag=1&add_text_url=1&id=
    But please note these URL's need to be hand checked to ensure they really are for free (vs subscription based) access to the full paper (vs. just a further abstract).
  • As an example, from the first page of the PubMed list of articles on Osteochondritis Dessecans there seemed to be a good review/overview article by Ytrehus et al. If we wished to use this as a footnote in an article, then simply enter its PMID number of 17606505 into the mark-up tool to create the markup for a reference shown as:
    
    Ytrehus B, Carlson CS, Ekman S (2007). "Etiology and pathogenesis of osteochondrosis". Vet. Pathol. 44 (4): 429–48. doi:10.1354/vp.44-4-429. PMID 17606505. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

David Ruben ^Talk 00:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

Most articles need images because they are worth a thousand words. The best ones are photographs that you have taken yourself. This is because all the images used on Wikipedia must not break any copyright laws. There are thousands of images on Wikipedia Commons, but just because they are there does not mean that they are free to use—check the license! One of the team is fortunate to be able to use this one. A Wikipedia Faetured Image. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting tib-it. Place this template Template:Helpme on your personal talk page along with the question you need addressed and perhaps someone will show up with answers?! Let me know how it turns out. --JimmyButler (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am slightly confused on how to insert images. Is it okay to just go to google images and find an image or do you have to go somewhere specific? Thanks! --Saunc2011 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Switching an article

I just figured I'd drop you a note to tell you that I'm changing articles from human body to genetic equilibrium. I think it'd capture my interest better, and the human body article is rather massive. --Strombollii (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop press! I know a fertile area...weeds!

Envoronmental weeds generally have very detailed profiles on many government websites. This is a great start for referencing. You guys would also be doing a great job as these things cause huge amounts of damage. I just thought of this as a wet late winter has turned my Australian garden into a jungle of green weeds.

As an example, Ailanthus altissima is what to aim for as it is a featured article

Stubs include Parietaria judaica, Anredera cordifolia, Salvinia molesta, ..I will find some others soon. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a really neat idea. When I first became a wikipedian I was keen to write articles on weeds...my undergrad degree was heavy in Weed Science (I even placed second in the Weed Science Society of America's weed science essay contest at the time) - and started with the main article on weeds itself...until I discovered the cabal of Wikipedians who have a fascination with that other type of weed. Maybe if you avoided the word weed entirely in the article...otherwise it seemed to invite trouble. But that may have been just a negative early experience here. I would definitely help anyone who wanted to take a weed article to FA! As an aside, I just spent an hour this afternoon looking at weed science books...successfully identifying a weed that was new to me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid

May I suggest taking this article to GA and beyond. All it needs is a bit of history and a bit of chemistry. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes

A few notes on JimmyButler's notes...

• Once more, I'm happy to mentor one or more students. I'm not going to pick one out of thin air, however. Feel free to assign one (or more) to me.
• Regarding your notes to self:
  1. I think that students picked some cool usernames. And I'm familiar with the disjunction between username and "classroom name," but personally I think that's quite cool.
  2. I don't think you need feel bad about the fact that they are copying and pasting from other people's user pages. In fact, that's quite a good way to learn how to edit on Wikipedia. Individuality, as you point out, comes later.
  3. I do, however, think you took a bit of a risk giving students (almost) free reign on choosing an article. But I'm sure everything will work out in the end. I have faith in you guys! Though I am still rooting for our guys to win our competition, of course... You'll come a very honorable second, hehe.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Can help some

Your project looks good. I've been around Wikipedia for two years. I'd be glad to help out in any way (assuming I have free time). Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Be a GA reviewer

... and receive Wiki-gratidude. Nothing much gets done unless you do it yourself. Speedy Good Article reviews happen when editors -just like everyone here - review other editors' articles. No diploma, no degree, no qualification whatsover is needed except a thick skin and a couple of hours to read an article and compose a brief review. There certainly are high school aged Wikipedians who review both GA and FA articles. To get started, read: Reviewing good articles. To choose an article, visit Good article nominations. Right now, YOU!!!! can review articles on your favourite band, sports team, movie and video game. Don't worry about not knowing what you are doing...just ask. Wikipedia is self-correcting. You won't be able to give GA status to a stub class article...other editors are watching. As long as an editor has not worked on an article or nominated the article, any editor can review. Note that the process is transparent in that every edit an editor makes is recorded. So, yes, AP Biology 2008 project editors can review each other's GA nominations, as long as you haven't worked on the article. And, everyone including your teacher can see who reviewed whom. And, I can block you from editing Wikipedia if you become a nuisance...well, something a lot more troublesome than just being a nuisance. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

... err, I'd strongly recommend that AP Biology 2008 project members did not review each others articles. The review process must not only be fair, it must be seen to be fair. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand ...but that is creating an artificial standard for the AP Biology 2008 project that most Wikipedia projects are not constrained by. Active project members do GA and FA review articles that are in the orbit of their projects. As long as the editors are not in a direct conflict - the major contributors of the articles - I don't see it as a problem. Of course, in GA you do occasionally see a couple of editors engaged in tag-team reviewing but the process is robust enough to deal with them. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GA has only one reviewer, so it's important that the reviewer is both fair and seen to be fair. That, to me, would be impossible in a situation like this one, so my recommendation still stands. FA is a different kettle of fish, as it does not rely on the opinion of just one reviewer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree with Malleus (which I know he loves) if only because reviewing for GA takes a special editor to recognize high quality in an article, demand it of the nominator, and not back down when the nominator protests, while still being encouraging and understanding of how much work the editor put into the article. It's difficult for many adults to do without acquiescing so they can please someone, passing an article so they can notch another in a belt, or being tyrannical about quality beyond GA (and often at FA). I think these students should concentrate now on writing their articles. I've recommended that my adoptee read other GAs up for nomination when the article is right about ready to be nominated, and perhaps reviewing an article in a completely different category - if only to become more familiar with GA standards. But there's too much a conflict of interest in reviewing a classmate's article. I'll skip off reviewing an article for an editor I've gotten chummy with here on Wiki, though I've never met them before. What's going to happen at the dance in a month, or between that person they kinda have a crush on (or will totally throw down with) is too much pressure, and invites mitigating forces best left off of GA reviews. -- Moni3(talk) 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is all true...except the reality is that a whole lot of our GA reviewers (and admins) are high school students themselves. The median age of editors is probably (no really good statistics on this yet) about nineteen or twenty. This isn't a community of wise-old elders. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Granted, that some editors claiming to be older than 40 have thrown the best hissyfits I've ever seen. Maturity is relative. --Moni3 (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The more important point though is that even if all GA reviewers were in high school, they wouldn't all be in the same high school, much less the same class. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point in our wiki journey; I'm not confident that their skill level would allow for a credible GA evaluation. Not a reflection on their intelligence; but rather on their experience in writing any type of reference material. As to how strongly biased they might be in critiquing each other - as Moni3 states - a date for the prom might be a real incentive for my 15 year-old fellows in the class! For now, I think we will just focus on what constitutes a legitimate reference and leave the GA reviews to those more experienced.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that when I was 15 years old it would have been a powerful incentive for me. Wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said: "I can resist everything but temptation"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Endomembrane system

Was wondering if anyone had any insight into the recent IP vandalism on this article. One telling version may be this one. I'm watching only this article of the group. If IP vandalism starts to occur throughout the article titles in this project, I'd be inclined to think it's a student within the project or a student at the school. It wouldn't bode too well for school projects. Just sayin'. --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem really, IP blocks need not affect registered editors. I've watchlitsed the page and warned the IP vandals. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism came from here, an address serving schools around Buffalo NY. I'll keep an eye on it. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Images, Part II

As I learned the hard way, images must, let me say that again, MUST, be from either the public domain (usually work copyright is 70 years old), from a government source, licensed as free on an image site (EG: Flickr), or you must obtain permission. I can not stress enough the difficulty in this process, and urge the rest of you to start NOW! If you want specifics on image rules and help, see:

• Wikipedia: Public domain image resource

and

• Wikipedia: Images (obtaining images)

Also, I found where the medical images hide (if you are looking for x-rays, MRIs, CT scans etc...)... look no further! (click me!) Food_Puma 20:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well stated FoodPuma, but note that image site has at bottom of its page "Contributed content may be © copyrighted by the original author/contributor" and trying to highlight text & right-click to copy brings up a pop-up box noting for fair-use for teeaching - that is not the same as a public domain resource under GFDL free licence for inclusion here in Wikipedia (it allows a lecturer though to use unaltered for their teaching class, but not distribute unlimited across the internetand in any edited form) :-( David Ruben ^Talk 02:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the issue in fair-use for teaching... it was the downfall of several prior images on my article! The point being, though, is that this database contains one of the widest fields of medical imaging with quick access to authors. I hope my peers will note what you said, that the images "may be © copyrighted by the original author/contributor" and thus they must contact the author to request permission. In my case, I found images from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Naval Medical Center at Portsmouth and was able to use them because they were works of the U.S. Federal Government. A note to those who are wise, be smart and CHECK who the author is BEFORE you go copying the image: you must have permission to use copyrighted material if it is not in the public domain. If the work is not in the public domain then you must get e-mail or otherwise contact the author and get a confirmation back, and then forward on your email to OTRS... but I am sure you can all figure it out! :-P Food_Puma 19:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

...and if you have to ask for permission, be sure to have them say "I release it under the guidelines of the GFDL Free Documentation License" or something of the like...otherwise, OTRS will reject it. I may have had that happen to me... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Website Links in Citations

A quick way to check and see if all of your links are properly working in citations is to use this Link Check. If you are like me and often use Google's "cache" tool, this also checks to see if the link is the "most concise."

For example, see the differences in the URL's of this link and this link.--Yohmom (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentor available

Hi, I saw your project and I think it's a great idea. I am available for mentoring if any students need help. I have some experience with the GA review process but little with FA. Wronkiew (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Use Wikipedia:Peer review and follow the directions to submit your wikipedia article for peer review. JimmyButler (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(moved from david ruben's talk page by me) Food_Puma 20:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yea, and I fixed the link issue with the "post a message" thing at top... for some reason it kept sending me to David Ruben's talk page... Food_Puma 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have not already asked for someone to look at your article in peer review, please go to WP:PRV and see the volunteers listed there. Since there are many Biology articles, I would suggest only asking one person for help, and if you go to their talk page and see several recent PR requests already, try someone else first. Also please feel free to review other articles in peer review. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

greetings from your cousins in the Great White North!

Hi guys. How's it going? I see there's slow but steady progress going on with the articles that I'm watching... Banker Horse, for instance. Excellent work!

But I'm here mostly to gloat... We Canadians have also been busy, eh, rather than simply reclining on our Chesterfields drinking our Molson tea with milk and petting our beavers moose.

We have a good article! O Canada and all that malarkey!

Mind you, we're not resting on our laurels, and we realize that you folk down south are well on the way to a few Good Articles yourselves. So may the competition continue!

Peace, love, and maple syrup. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, I just realized I'm giving the yanks more logistical assistance than my fellow Canadians. *hits self on head* - oh well. I've been seeing some excellent progress on the articles I've watchlisted, so the AP Project is definitely coming along. Cam ^(Chat) 00:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a Canadian, you're well aware that our Southern neighbours need all the help they can get... ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As a native of Seattle, I have heard all to many examples of our ignorance and stupidity from my Canadian friends to the north. I would like to point out, however, that the article I've been editing still hasn't passed GA nearly a month after being reviewed... That is, even after I addressed most every issue and concern posted: Osteochondritis Dissecans :-( Food_Puma 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just popped over there to see what was up... only to note that it is now a GA! Congratulations!

(Uh-oh, that means that at present it's a score draw between us and the Yanks... yikes!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah! Huzzah! Success is within our grasps... 'tis only a matter of time till FA! :-) Food_Puma 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Very supportive

I am very supportive of your project and would like to award you all this Barnstar.

		The Original Barnstar
		message Doggitydogs (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- congrats on the string of good articles, etc. -- keep up the good work! -Pete (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Motivation for the project

This

The dreaded “Research Paper” is a standard hurdle for most AP Programs. Rightfully so - being that many college courses require such publication to validate your existence. As a consequence, I have graded literally hundreds of papers with the same enthusiasm as my students proclaimed during their creation.

In the end, they were rewarded for their effort or destroyed for their incompetency. The papers themselves merely contributed to our overly bloated landfills.

Hence, my excitement over my new approach to constructing a scientific document using Wikipedia. As all of you are aware, Wikipedia is an information data base framed around the encyclopedia concept that is open for anyone to edit. Rather than researching for a paper that is destined to the circular bin… let us contribute to the world-wide data base for others to benefit.

is a very good motivation for running this type of project. I think it should be worked into the project description page. --Ettrig (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I had over-looked this comment. I have been asked to share my experiences with my peers. The position posed in the statement is a compelling argument for this project. The scope of the application is infinite; however, I see enormous benefits regarding - History Articles and Literature Reviews. I had suspected this strategy was used a lot on Wikipedia. Other than the college experience with JBMurray; I've not seen examples. I remember being exciting over blogging as a teaching tool. Now the students groan when I bring it up - it has become a mainstream strategy. It will interesting to see if this approach meets that level of application.--JimmyButler (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Impact, Respect

Position in Google result list when searching for the words in the article title.

• 21 Osteochondritis dissecans
• 1 Endomembrane system
• 1 Phagocyte
• 1 Banker Horse
• 4 North American River Otter
• 1 Osteitis fibrosa cystica
• 1 Atlantic blue marlin
• 3 Cannonball Jellyfish
• 2 Macaroni Penguin
• 1 Dwarfism
• ? Solar urticaria (Urticaria is 7)
• 1 Human musculoskeletal system
• 1 Gastritis
• 1 Brain ischemia

You may not get exactly the same result, but the trend is nevertheless clear. You are providing the world with information. --Ettrig (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Project Dead Line / Closure

We will bringing this project to a close on May 1, 2009. All nominations for either GA or FA should be submitted by that date. This will allow for review from May 1, 2009 until June 5, 2009. I would assume that will be adequate time for the review to be concluded. For those who have yet to obtain either GA or FA - you will need to clear both hurdles by May 1, 2009 - to receive the maximum points. If you are able to make multiple attempts before the dead line - that is not a problem. However, all nominations after May 1, 2009 (even repeated attempts) will not be considered for the purpose of a grade.

I would discourage any acts of desperation at the dead line. If you have invested little into the project then DO NOT USE the evaluation process and the Wikipedia Community to address your short-comings.

If you should post your article for consideration of GA or FA - monitor the commentaries closely and make every effort to address credible concerns. If your presences is notably absent during the GA or FA process and others address your concerns - I will over-ride this policy and use my judgment as a the teacher to determine your grade.

To be clear on the rewards:

Featured Article is a 100 with a weighted value equivalent to 3 major test. This can be applied to any of the second semester grading periods (even prior marking periods). You will also have a day - dedicated in your honor that I will celebrate with all future classes. Already, March 9 is The M.R. Day a moment of celebration - drinks food - and a movie. You will have made history - at least at Croatan High School. Every year it will be announced. Future generations will know your name and you accomplishment.

Good Article is an automatic 100 with a weighted value equivalent to 1 major test. It too can be applied to any marking period. sorry - no day in your honor.

It is possible to receive both grades (one does not substitute for the other).

For those who do not attempt either or attempt and fall short; I will grade your efforts. This will involve a review of your edit history, the scientific level of your contributions, the credibility of your citations, citation format, prose, grammar, and all the other criteria that is traditionally used for evaluating standard high school research papers. It is possible to obtain a failing grade. The grade is weighted the same as a GA attempt.

On collaboration. This has been an issue of concern as the grade is not based only on the merits of your contributions; but, includes the work of others within the Wikipedia community. In some cases, these outside forces can be seen as beneficial to your chances of a good grade and in others they appear as an obstacle. To that perception I respond in this manner: The students that have had success have fostered positive relationships within the community. They have done so by showing an interest in the subject. Such passion is recognized by others; the out come being a collaborative effort. If you have failed to build support and alliances - it is simply because your haphazard edits did not demonstrate this passion. If you had built it - they would have come. If you slap it together at the last minute, the chances of soliciting support are dramatically reduced. I will defend this view should protest be lodged against my grading policy.

My goal is that all students elevate their articles to GA. A bit ambitious; but, within the realm of possibility. Perhaps, those that have gained experience will share their Wiki-fever with others in the class. Collaboration can begin at home.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans cleanup needed

There are several issues needing attention in this article. Although Maralia and I did most of the basic MoS cleanup, at Talk:Osteochondritis dissecans, there are two long posts about issues to be resolved in the lead, and there is an unresolved merge tag. There are also five unresolved inline queries (they can be found by searching in edit mode for <! ) I hope the regular editors and nominators will be vigilant in maintaining the article to FA standards, so it won't have to be submitted to WP:FAR for re-evaluation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In-line comments have been addressed. The lead, was a subject of constant debate. The original version submitted by Foodpuma was extensively modified by others to meet their idea of an FA lead. We were operating under the assumption that the final version was satisfactory to the naysayers. The concerns raised by Colin were post FA; so I'm not entirely certain that Foodpuma wants to wade back into that protracted debate. This article has passed out of the hands of my student; the level of complexity and the high degree of disagreement over the lead may be best handled now by the medical experts. As the project leader, I sincerely thank you for addressing the MoS issues, it would indeed be disappointing to see it dropped as an FA article before the ink dried on the paper. At this point, we hope that rather than request WP:FAR; those with an interest and knowledge of the topic will make the necessary improvements. I think Foodpuma has moved on to concerns with AP Calculus - my powers of persuasion evaporated when I plugged in his grade! --JimmyButler (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I had responded (or since have, I forget it's chronology in relation to this post of yours) to one of the issues of the lede. Apparently my suggestions (as well as one of Una's) have gone unheeded and have been ignored. On the other hand, I have neglected Colin's "issues" on the grounds that I find some of his "selected" words already explained. EG: Colin lists "Osteochondritis dissecans" as one of many technical terms in the lede that could use clarification; considering we devoted an entire paragraph to describing exactly what the words mean (as a sum, not as individual words), I think this is a little extraneous. Other terms presented in his list are valid points, worthy of identification as problem areas for reading comprehension, although I don't totally agree with what he has suggested. To end with, I feel as though the FAC was rushed or inappropriately promoted if you honestly feel the need for a reevaluation in the near-future. Consider this is a reflection not of my (or any other primary-editor's) work ethic and dedication to the article, but instead a reflection on the FAC process. I would have much rather seen the article fail FA and have these points be the linchpin, than to have it pass only to be pestered after the fact that somehow I did not "complete my job." Hopefully you will read this with a light heart, as I know I have come off defensive in the past and I have tried to be calm and reserved here. I will gladly continue to edit, contribute and discuss (albeit noticeably less) as long as the ears of the community are open and willing. Cheers, Food_Puma