Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Genetics

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:03, 25 March 2008.

Genetics

edit

Self-nominator. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unclear why the current ref #2 (Hartl & Jones Genetics) has an 854 pages listed at the end? Did you mean page 854?
It probably meant the entirety of the book. I've removed this, since I assume it's unnecessary. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works! Although the citation needs a page number for the exact source of the information. I take it you did not add this citation? Ealdgyth - Talk 05:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a textbook, and I do happen to own it although I didn't originally add the citation. The other one is too, which I also own. These citations follow the first sentence of the article as general sources for uncontroversial knowledge not covered by other citations within the article, per Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines: "Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources..." Madeleine ✉ ✍ 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okies. Learn something new every day! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The online copy of Wiliam Bateson's letter needs publisher information. Also, has this letter been published somewhere in a journal or book? If so, probably good to reference that also.
This is (as you can see in the link) a private hand-written letter. I'm not aware of it being "published" in a journal. There is the later reference to the first formally published usage of the term, from that conference. Is the "The John Innes Centre", which has this document in its collection, considered a "publisher"? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. That fixes it. (The historian in me would like to see some secondary source saying that it's the first usage) Ealdgyth - Talk 05:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference to the OED. I'm accessing the online 3rd edition; I'm not really sure how to do these OED references, maybe you could point me to an example. I'm guessing it should have an access date, so I've noted that. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OED works as a source. I'll let an MOS expert look at the actual citation, because I'm not sure exactly how to do that either. I'd think Template:Cite web, but Template:Cite book also has an access date and url spot so that might be better. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Kenneth R. Bridges How Does Sickle Cell Cause Disease? reference needs a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable souce?
Citing a publisher for websites is confusing to me. I suppose I could cite "Brigham and Women's Hospital Information Center for Sickle Cell and Thalassemic Disorders". Is this acceptable?
While not as reliable as a textbook or journal article, this is a website for an organization for the disease within Brigham and Women's Hospital, an established medical research institute with strong ties to Harvard Medical School. In this case I opted for a reference people could freely access; I could provide a textbook reference instead, or in addition, if you feel it necessary. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I think I picked it because it has diagrams spanning the amino acid change to polymer formation to cell distortion. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that publisher is fine, you've got the right publisher if that is the group behind the web site. I couldn't find any information on their site giving me any idea who was behind them. Knowing that makes it a reliable source! Ealdgyth - Talk 05:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • MedlinePlus: Phenylketonuria needs a publisher and last access date at the least, publisher and other bibliographic information would be better.
    • The Use of Model Organisms site needs last access date information at the least, other bibliographic information would be better
    • NCBI Genes and Disease needs publisher and last access date at the least, more bibliographic information would be better...
    • PHarmacogenetics fact sheet needs publisher at the least, more bibliographic information would be better.
    • The Post-Human Genome Project site needs publisher and last access date, more bibliographic information would be better.
Links check out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and I've added last access dates and publishers that seemed to be organizations responsible for relevant sites. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I did the Good Article review a few days ago and was particulalrly impressed with the clarity of the prose and quality of the images. I wasn't expecting the article to appear here quite so soon. The article is accurate but needs more citations. Please find some, especially for the Natural selection and evolution section. I would make sure each paragraph of the article as at least one reference. Is a description of F1 hybrids and all those other F numbers needed?--GrahamColmTalk 14:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's comphrehensive, encyclopedic, well-written and most importantly— comprehendible. It sets a good standard for science articles.--GrahamColmTalk 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Since the article is pretty much a solo act and hasn't changed significantly since I wrote it last year, the best way to improve it is to get the feedback I'm getting here. As you noticed before I responded here, I've added some more citations — the history section was also lacking. If there are any remaining places anyone thinks should get a citation, adding a fact tag would be very helpful.
I'll think about how to add stuff on F1 hybrids; maybe create a new section on genetic notation. Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 17:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a section Genetic notation and diagrams that includes information on F1/F2. I hope this doesn't disrupt the flow of the article. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 20:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I've read this one a while ago and it was pretty good. I don't have the time to look at it in the detail needed to provide criticism, and probably don't know enough anyway. One thing that I thought about back then was the need to have a clear scope for the genetics and gene articles to avoid too much overlap, although some is inevitable. It would be great to have a WikiProject on this topic. Richard001 (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellently detailed and expanded- above all, engaging. I was seriously interested when reading this, and I normally find the subject rather tedious. Teh Rote (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Brilliant! After a quick read, these were my suggestions, and have now been addressed:Leevanjackson (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead section... I am reading this in conjunction with Introduction to genetics seems the latter article goes into a bit too much detail (glossary?), and although some users call for a seperate article, I think this articles lead could be shortened to be an introduction, moving the current detail to a new more in-depth section.
Sorry I took a while to reply here. I made a reduction to the lead that removes the historical overview: [1] This was before others had responded to these comments, so if someone liked the old version better feel free to revert. If the lead could use further (or different?) simplification, maybe the third paragraph (molecular overview of how DNA -> traits) could be removed. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • History and Research sections should be consecutive, since it finishes on research I'd suggest moving history just before it.
I'm neutral on this. Does anyone else think this is best? I have observed that some people really like having the history at the beginning of an article. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article works best with the History at the beginning. This is how the subject is often taught. Please don't move it. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest moving the research techniques subsection into genetic change maybe rename and expand to be genetic manipulation.
    • The ending seemed a bit abrupt - think it needs a 'see also' or 'related articles' section
  • Support very impressive, I would have been scared to even tackle this topic. Please don't add a see also or similar Jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Genetics&oldid=1138461422"