Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Artman40 (talk | contribs) at 20:54, 2 January 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DNA

DNA is central to modern biology and is arguably the most famous chemical in biochemistry. This article deals with DNA as a molecule, particularly its structure and interactions. It also introduces some of the processes in which DNA is involved in the cell. Self-nomination. The article is 69 kb in total size with 39 kb total readable prose. It has recently been peer-reviewed and is currently a Good article. TimVickers 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Noting that this is an FFA, so that it will be correctly archived at WP:FFA, and contain a complete record on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Semperf 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Tone 14:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Definite support – ClockworkSoul 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. First sentence of the "DNA damage" section: DNA can be damaged many different sorts of mutagens. - Do you mean by many different sorts of mutagens? Why is the image in the lead found next to the table of content? This will make the reader scroll up and down while he reads the lead. Please remove the external link at the first image of the "DNA damage" section, this should be found on the image description page per WP:CAP; same for many other images on the article. External links section needs a cleanup, remove everything designed for children or trivial. Unnecessary bold text at the article's first section, just make these links. The third image caption consist entirely of bold text. Add more information about DNA ligase in the "Nucleases and ligases" section. In "Forensics" section: This process is called using genetic fingerprinting or DNA profiling - Maybe it's called genetic fingerprinting? Some image captions lack periods. Replace all "here" in the article referring to images with "in this example". This is all I could find after a 10-minute glance into the article, good luck! Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Typos fixed, bolding removed, links changed into references, external links tidied up, a period added to an image caption. The use of "Here" is to join two sentences together, not to refer to a caption. It is used when the first sentence names a topic and the second one provides details. Expanded DNA ligase section and added refs. TimVickers 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, my concerns/questions were resolved on the peer review. Hat's off to Tim for taking on a former featured article, to get it re-promoted! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A core topic, great prose, excellent use of images, summary style and daughter articles, accessible as it should be. Waiting for that little gold star now... Fvasconcellos 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Now, for the nit-picks :) In the "Topoisomerases and helicases" section, there are two sentences which seem redundant to me (not in meaning, but in style). The "Forensics" section is not quite up to the rest of the article; it could use some fleshing up. That's all I can think of now. Fvasconcellos 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Did I change the sentence you thought redundant, or was it another? Forensics section re-arranged a little. TimVickers 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was it — thanks, that was quick! No objections now, sorry :) Fvasconcellos 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support--WS 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support good structure, language and sources. TSO1D 05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article, just wish that the History section was longer. I just watched a documentary about the discovery of DNA and it was pretty interesting. CG 12:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The history section used to take up half the article, all that content was moved to the History of molecular biology daughter article. TimVickers 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support—Very nice indeed. Tony 13:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support excellent work once again. Hope you don't mind, I added a bit to the bioinformatics section and weaseled slightly on the description of the Adleman paper in the DNA computing section - it was a great proof-of-concept, but the actual problem solved was so small that I worry about overstating the magnitude of the practical applications. Opabinia regalis 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good work. TimVickers 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support — All references are highly qualified journal papers. Well done for such a general topic! — Indon (reply) — 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, great article. --Carioca 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• SUPPORT Superb. This is a really great, factually accurate article. Nice work. Wikipediarules2221 04:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article! Only needs a more detailed picture of a DNA replication. --Artman40 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)