Talk:Genetic engineering/GA1

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

I'll take this on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chiswick Chap. I will work through your comments over the next few days. AIR corn (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments
First of all, many thanks for helping to bring such an important and controversial topic to GAN. It's very good to see the topics that our readers actually want help on covered in this way.


 * Lead: needs to summarize whole of article. At the moment it covers the function and applications quite well, but does not cover the History, Regulation, or Controversy sections in enough detail. Suggest you make a pass right through article summarizing each section, and then see if you want to augment or replace the existing lead text.
 * I mixed in more details and expanded it to four decent paragraphs. I think it gives a much better summary now. AIR corn (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Definition: perhaps this should be called 'Context', as it discusses and compares GM with related techniques.
 * What about something like "Terminology". That gives it the broader scope, but keeps it more encyclopedic. It also covers the last paragraph better. There appears to be genuine confusion on what is and what isn't genetic engineering so I felt it was important to specifically point out that cloning and stem cell research are not explicitly genetic engineering. AIR corn (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I think we should avoid sections on "terminology" at any cost. Our job is to write about the subject, not about the words about the subject, with as little jargon as possible. And we need a context section, see below. We should cut down talk about words to the absolute minimum. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Went with overview. Not a fan of context. Hope this works. AIR corn (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Definition/Context: it might be helpful to add a short paragraph of actual context (in the same section or another depending on what we agree to name it). This might say briefly that plant breeding is slow, but the need for it is urgent (famine, global warming, population growth, no new agricultural land), and that GM offers the potential to faster breeding from a wider range of genes, in theory solving many problems.
 * I am a bit wary of doing this given the controversial nature of the topic. While it certainly has those potentials it has also been argued that it has failed to live up to its expectations. Maybe start the paragraph comparing GE to traditional plant breeding as that would also be a good way to help show the differences. A diagram and example would be nice (I have a few ideas there). I could then attribute some of these predictions along with a few counters (balanced as best I can). I will think on this, but can probably rustle something up. AIR corn (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good. Neither the differences from trad. breeding, nor the urgent need, are at all controversial; and GE certainly offers the hope of meeting the need. Something of the sort is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Added two new paragraphs to "Overview" (previously "Definition"). The advantages are more than food so I added those in as well. Will leave the examples for the "Applications". AIR corn (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * History - why not say which animal Jaenisch created in the image caption.


 * History - why not name Jennifer Doudna under CRISPR. Maybe we should say CRISPR/Cas9, by the way.


 * History - please spell out and wikilink FDA at first instance.


 * Process - maybe spell out 'genetic screens' at first instance (currently just 'screens').


 * Process - I'd expect to see a photograph of a scientist at work on the process here (something like File:Master Mix with Primers form PCR.jpg, say). Failing that we could have a photo of a machine like a gene gun, File:PDS 1000-He Biolistic Particle Delivery System ("Gene Gun").jpg, for example.
 * I looked for ages for a better photo of a scientist doing GM work and could not find a definitive one. Used the one you provided, but may look to upload one myself at some point and replace it. AIR corn (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Inserting DNA ... - the "currently four families" is sounding a bit old, given that CRISPR/Cas9 is so much more efficient than the rest. Maybe mention that, at least.
 * Don't think we should write off TALENs just yet, but you are right that some more context to their advantages is needed so added two short sentences. AIR corn (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Medicine - "Follistim" => "Urofollitropin" or better simply "follicle stimulating hormone". The same issue for "Glybera". We should always behave like an encyclopedia and give the generic name, not a trade name at first instance. If you believe the trade names are vital, put them in parentheses after the generic names. (Same for any other instances of the practice)


 * Research - "Genes and other genetic information from a wide range of organisms are transformed into bacteria " - probably you don't mean they're turned into bacteria. Best reword.

Agriculture - removed outdated second ref for salmon; removed sentence and ref about cow's milk (never brought to market, and ref was dead anyway); changed description of effects on salmon to reaching normal adult size faster rather than the wrongly stated grow larger. David notMD (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor tweaks

 * "insect resistant and/or herbicide tolerant" - please avoid the /: "or" is surely sufficient here.


 * "humanised" => "adapted".


 * "academic lab" => "research laboratory".


 * BioArt => Microbial art.

Summary
I'm very pleased to see that the article is now free of the small issues listed above, and in particular that the lead is a far better summary of the text. It's clearly of the right standard and I'm happy to award it a GA. I hope you'll take the time to help shorten the GAN queue by reviewing an article or two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)