Talk:Gene targeting

Major edit
Hi there, I'm planning on improving and expanding this article, but this will probably require a complete rewrite. I'm going to integrate all the information already included. Also I'm planning on removing the Nobel prize section, rather mentioning this elsewhere, I hope no one objects. BioStu (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by Cindyhong123 (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edits
I am a Post Graduate researcher at the University of Leeds working in the area of Gene Targeting. I've identified some areas for improvement with the lead for this article; 1. "The method can be used to delete a gene, remove exons" --> I am not aware of Gene targeting being used to remove DNA and can't see how this is possible through Homology directed repair(?). If no one has any objections I'd like to remove this. 2. "Gene targeting can be permanent or conditional" - I am not clear what this means. What does 'conditional' mean in this context? 3. "Conditions can be a specific time during development / life of the organism or limitation to a specific tissue, for example" - again it's not clear what this means. Is this referring to inducible GT? 4. "Gene targeting requires the creation of a specific vector for each gene of interest. However, it can be used for any gene, regardless of transcriptional activity or gene size" - this means very little out of context. I propose moving this point later in the article where it can be fully explained.

In general the lead is supposed to be understandable by a general audience, however the current lead is very technical and therefore not accessible. As such I would like to write a new lead that is more accessible. Yorkrosa (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for setting out these issues, . To me as a lay person, the current lead does have a problem of readability (which applies to a lot of Wikipedia articles on technical subjects). There are wikilinks for some technical terms, but that doesn't excuse the article from having to be written in a way that someone new to the topic isn't put off by the first few sentences. To learn that there are also some issues with the accuracy, and there are statements which don't make sense for an expert, suggests that the lead would benefit from a substantial rewrite. I encourage you to be bold in making changes and look forward to what improvements you'll make. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks very much @MartinPoulter! 194.80.232.19 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)