- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Max Birnstiel
edit- ... that Swiss biologist Max Birnstiel was one of the first scientists to purify a single gene?
- ALT1:... that Swiss biologist Max Birnstiel was the founding director of the Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, which helped establish the biotechnology industry in Vienna?
- Reviewed: Reversible cellular automaton
Created by Opabinia regalis (talk). Self-nominated at 06:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC).
I love the first hook, but I am concerned that the article says "His research group is sometimes cited as the first to purify single genes", suggesting that it is not as definite as the hook makes it sound. I can't access the full source so I can't see the wording used. I would also suggest repeating that claim (and the one that follows it in the lead, about gene enhancer elements) in the section about his career. 97198 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @97198: Hmm, you don't think "one of" is enough of a hedge? The lac operon isolation mentioned in the article is more commonly recognized as "the first", but that's not accurate. The PNAS obit says "This was the first time a single gene had been purified, predating the isolation of the bacterial lac operon gene—sometimes hailed as the first gene isolation—by 3 years." I also added a book by another scientist who was active in early molecular genetics, citing his discussion of Birnstiel's work. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually on second thought, I agree that the hook is fine – "one of" covers all bases. Both hooks are interesting and cited (primarily to offline sources) but I think the original is snappier. The article itself is new enough, long enough, well referenced, neutral, and has no close paraphrasing from the sources I can access. Nice work! 97198 (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
