Talk:Embryogenesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is very informative, but it deals only with mammalian development, blastocysts are exclusive to mammals. They can be, roughly, seen as the equivalent to the blastula in mammals, but they are not blastulas. I think this article should:

• be renamed "mammalian embryogenesis" or something like that, blastocyst redirecting there.
• a new embryogenesis article should deal with general embryogenesis, with morulas, blastulas, gastrulas, blastiocysts, etc. explaining the differences, which stage follows after each, etc.

if this is ok with everyone, i can try and do it (but starting tomorrow by night) --Tycho 20:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should keep this page as a disambiguation page and make mammalian embryogenesis a new page. Embryogenesis can then link to mamamalian, plant and drosophila embryogenesis. --nixie 23:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • I have moved the page to mammalian embryogenesis to keep its histoty page, this talk page wasn't moved along with it.--Tycho 22:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 spelling mistake? 1.1 == 2 embryology 3 GA Nominated

[edit] spelling mistake?

Cells start mayor differentiation processes, losing their pluripotentiality.

shouldn't mayor be major?

[edit] ==

I believe the illustration on this page has some errors. The cells labeled ectoderm are actually the epiblast -- They will later become ectoderm after the primitive streak forms and gastrulation starts. The cells labeled endoderm are actually hypoblast celss -- They will be replaced by cells that migrate from the primative streak and THEN become endoderm. The layer of cells labeled mesoderm, is technically mesoderm but it is extraembryonic mesoderm -- it will form the chorion (and therefore part of the placenta). The embryonic mesoderm will be formed from cells in the primative streak and is located between the embryonic ectoderm and embryonic endoderm. Other than these errors the illustration is very clear and easy to understand -- is it possible for it to be corrected? --Dbrouse 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] embryology

would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [1]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nominated

Embryogenesis was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 31 October 2006

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

In short:

The lead is awkward and a poor introduction to the article, and the rest of the text is somewhat weak. It uses only two references, neither of which is particularly notable. It fails to put the process in context - not even a link to reproduction? Meiosis? Gastrulation section is biased towards Deuterostomes.

Needs a lot of work, I fear, but it is a good start. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)