Talk:Genetic purging

A bit technical still

First, I applaud DaybreakGD (talk · contribs) for their efforts in this article, and I think it's off to a good start. However, I have concerns with the tone of this article, which sounds more like something intended for a scientific journal than an encyclopedia. I know this is a scientific topic, but is still goes a few steps too far beyond what is ideal writing style for such a topic. Here are a few examples:

In the lead:

• It occurs because inbreeding increases the probability that any allele occurs in homozygosis, and many deleterious alleles only express all their deleterious effect in the homozygous condition.-- What is homozygosis? What is meant by the homozygous condition? These terms are unhelpful for non-specialist readers.

In the body:

• Accounting for purging when predicting the fitness decline expected under inbreeding is important in evolutionary genetics and animal breeding and, of course, in conservation genetics, because inbreeding depression may be a relevant factor determining the extinction risk of endangered populations, and because conservation programs can allow some breeding handling in order to control inbreeding.-- This sentence is a bit too long and can be broken up into separate sentences to read more clearly.
• In brief, due to purging, inbreeding depression is not proportional to the inbreeding level, described by Wright's inbreeding coefficient F, because this description only applies to neutral alleles. Instead, fitness decline is proportional to “purged inbreeding” (g), which gives the inbreeding level for deleterious alleles taking into account how they are being purged. --What is inbreeding depression? I see a definition for g is provided, but the definition uses undefined terms like "inbreeding level" which still doesn't make this term very clear.
• Below we describe this process in more detail and we provide an example for the case of inbreeding depression caused by recessive lethal alleles.-- You cannot use the editorial "we" in article writing on Wikipedia. This is not a scientific journal.

Anyway, the article does need to be rewritten to make this a bit more accessible to non-specialists, and so that it complies particularly with WP:UPFRONT, which states that articles should be written so that the most accessible content is at the top, and more technical details are at the bottom. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear I Jethrobot, As I see it, readers only need to click on those technical words, like "homozygosis", and they'll find out a whole article explaining their meaning. CheersJohn Caves Goldenbear (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What are those BOX 1 and BOX 2?

Those things look like a remnants of previous versions of the article. _Vi (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)