Talk:Gene/Review

To WP:MCB, WP:GEN, WP:BIOL and WP:EB

The gene article gets 50,000 views per month but has been de-listed as a featured article since 2006. Given the success of the recent blitz on the enzyme article, I thought I'd suggest spending a couple of weeks seeing if we can get it up to a higher standard. I'm going to start with updating some of the images. If you'd like to help out on the article, it'd be great to see you there. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 09:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears the main reason gene was delisted as a GA was sourcing (see Talk:Gene/GA1). The following free textbook is probably sufficient to document most basic facts about genes:
 * a second one is even more relevant, but unfortunately not freely accessed:
 * I will start working on this as I find time. Boghog (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will start working on this as I find time. Boghog (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will start working on this as I find time. Boghog (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt on this! I see I did do some work here back in the day, but not enough. Looks like a typical large-but-untended wiki article - bloated up with random factoids with no attention to the flow of the article. I'm pretty busy for this week and out of town next week, but I'll try to give it some attention. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll probably go through and make all the necessary MOS tweaks for FA status to the article within the next week. Too preoccupied with other articles at the moment to make any substantive content/reference changes though.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 03:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Glossary
Snooping around I encountered Template:Genetics glossary, I don't know it's backstory, but it is a rather cleaver idea for a template in my opinion. I partially reckon it might go well under the first image in place or the second image depicting DNA, which conceptually is a tangent. I am not sure, hence my asking. --Squidonius (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Including a glossary could be useful, but I think it should be concise and tailored specifically for this article. Currently Genetics glossary contains 22 entries and some of the definitions are quite lengthy.  A shorter glossary, closer to the size of Transcription factor glossary or Restriction enzyme glossary, IMHO would be more effective.  Another option is to transclude the Genetics sidebar which in turn links to Genetics glossary. Boghog (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ...could also just transclude a collapsed version - provides the full set of terms and takes up little space. If people need a glossary, they can expand it. Glossaries probably shouldn't be expanded by default unless there's a lot of free space along the right side of the page between level 2 sections (i.e., horizontal line breaks), since images and tables should take precedence.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 07:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Collapsed or not collapsed, Genetics glossary is still way too long. Glossaries should be restricted to key terms with short definitions that can quickly be scanned while reading the rest of the article. IMHO, a long glossary defeats its purpose.  Furthermore an uncollapsed glossary is more likely be read and if kept short, no need to collapse. Boghog (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Might as well make a new one since it's not referenced anyway; imo, glossaries should cite sources, preferably another glossary, because it's article content.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 08:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, apparently I added a bunch of stuff to that template awhile back, but don't remember it at all. It appears to be a subset of the article genetics glossary. (I'm not really sure we need both.) I agree that the template is way too long, and as constructed is hard to ctrl-F for a term.
 * I suggest just linking to the MBC glossary as a "reference". I would consider this kind of thing as a summary analogous to the lead paragraphs; no need for a clutter of little blue numbers. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

MBOC references
Article

Genes are numerous  and useful

References


 * Glossary
 * Ch 2: Cell Chemistry and Biosynthesis
 * 2.1: The Chemical Components of a Cell
 * Ch 4: DNA and Chromosomes
 * 4.1: The Structure and Function of DNA
 * 4.2: Chromosomal DNA and Its Packaging in the Chromatin Fiber
 * Ch 6: How Cells Read the Genome: From DNA to Protein
 * 6.1: DNA to RNA
 * 6.2: RNA to Protein
 * Ch 7: Control of Gene Expression

So rp labels the chapter number but does not provide any easy link to the actual information. Therefore it's combined with a list of chapter links. the benefit is that the rp template is relatively easy to maintain and the list of chapter links doesn't require maintainance and places all the MBOC links together. As stated above, there's basically no way to avoid linking individually to chapters if we want to cite MBOC. I'll finish building the chapter list over the next couple of days. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've finished adding MBOC references up to section 3 (gene expression). Also, whoever originally wrote the gene expression section of the article really liked semicolons! T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 10:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks great, I like the collapsible box! I can't find it at the moment, though - IIRC there is somewhere an agreement not to use collapsed boxes for references for accessibility reasons. I don't see it in WP:ACCESSIBILITY so I could be misremembering, and since the box contains links and not the reference note itself, it's probably fine. Just wanted to mention it in case someone recognized the issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The guideline is MOS:COLLAPSE, which states "...boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists ... When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS." I checked this article on my phone, a mid-2011 model, and that entire box just doesn't appear at all using the default mobile view.  I tried setting the template parameter expand=true so the box is expanded by default but that made no difference.  Maybe better to change to a bulleted or indented list? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well spotted - It's really irritating when templates don't work properly on mobiles! I've changed the MBOC list to be wrapped in  + , which renders properly on phones (default expanded). T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 12:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, that works – thanks! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)