Talk:Caenorhabditis elegans/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Narayanese (talk · contribs) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Intitial comments

 * Lead and research sections
 * What kind of research is this model organism good for?


 * Have added sentence to lead - think rest is covered in Research section. Iztwoz (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Microanatomy
 * Gut granules: I think this should be moved to its own article, link through a mention somewhere in this article; given too much weight at present


 * Disagree with this. The section is quite small and relevant and of interest in article. Iztwoz (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ecology
 * What eats these worms, is it known? (predators/parasites)


 * Added sentence. Iztwoz (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I realise now there's very little known, but I like the addition you did. Narayanese (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Notable Findings
 * Move/merge chromosome number and sex determination into genome


 * Merged to Reproduction and development but may need a citation. Iztwoz (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SCICITE it doesn't actually need that citation - it's textbook stuff.


 * Move/cut down the section on meiosis to reproduction - is radiation resistance really that notable discovery?


 * It's the repair mechanism involved in the radiation part that is of interest so overall would agree that since it is missing in other organisms is a notable discovery. Iztwoz (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Also feel that info on meiosis is more relevant to findings than to reproduction section Iztwoz (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Genome
 * "Introns, or non-expressed sequences, are 26% of the genome" is unclear if its intergenic as well - why would you only give the number for introns?
 * Why the dislike of whole genome shotgun?


 * rm changed link to genome sequencing as per entry and rm arguable criticism of technique Iztwoz (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

**(nitpicking, unimportant) "gene predictions": new genes would be discovered by mRNA sequencing or so, not dependent on prediction from dna sequence, right? Gene model


 * Evolution
 * The cited paper is weak evidence.

Article history is stable. References and external links look fine. Sasata's tags have point though.

I might edit the article myself, don't be afraid to revert my changes - I don't want to end up approve my very own version for GA. Narayanese (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the genomes of other species in the genus like C. brenneri: I think those are already done, I can find files for them at. Narayanese (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Noted in text and gave ref Iztwoz (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice. Narayanese (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding '10% of the 20,000 genes in its genome are 'essential', meaning that RNAi knockdown of those genes resulted in "sterility, embryonic or larval lethality, slow post-embryonic growth, or a post-embryonic defect." ': this is not what the cited article says (Nonv is its category of essential genes), and it makes little sense to call genes whose knockdown causes post-embryonic defects or slow growth 'essential' since the worms manage to survive. Narayanese (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed very unclear and not true to ref....rm this part and replace with more generalised ref on genetic interaction. Iztwoz (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Think all your points have been covered. Let me know if I've missed anything...thanks Iztwoz (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup, they are. Happy to see the little rough edges of the article going smooth through your edits. Narayanese (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

On GA criteria

 * 1a. Clear prose: yes, it's easy to read. Exception are Latin-derived terms like vermiform for worm-like, but at least they're wikilinked.


 * 1b. Layout: good. Headers make sense, and the lead while near the minimum length manage to cover the basics.
 * 2. References: they're ok.


 * 3a. Broad coverage: yes. It has must-haves like Brenner, WormBase, composts, cell count, genome sequencing date, RNA interference, taxonomy.
 * 3b. You say death fluorescence and oocyte radiation resistance are not straying into too obscure topics, so I'll trust you. I see from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22872477 that meiosis has notable worm research, so fine with it's inclusion in the section.
 * 4. Neutral: yes. I'll give you a while to have a changce to revert my edits though.


 * 5. Stable: yes.


 * 6. Images: there are, and they're appropriate to the subject and have a free license (CC-SA).

Narayanese (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Some more
"Some large, intergenic regions contain the usually found repetitive DNA sequences. " This is not really true to the spirit of what the source says: "For example, although only 26% of                       the genome sequence is predicted to be intronic, it contains 51% of the tandem repeats and 45% of the inverted repeats. The                        47% of the genome sequence that is predicted to be intergenic contains only 49% of the tandem repeats and 55% of the inverted                        repeats.", so I would remove that sentence. Narayanese (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Iztwoz (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fix the deadlink and the bare url citation. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)