Template:Did you know nominations/IPlant Collaborative

IPlant Collaborative

 * ... that .... the iPlant Collaborative developed a DNA Subway?


 * ALT1 ... that .... the iPlant Collaborative developed a social networking service that uses clades of phylogenetics?


 * Comment: Developed in user space; moved on September 21

Created/expanded by Matthewhelmke (talk). Nominated by W Nowicki (talk) at 20:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Institutions section is nearly completely uncited. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps it might make more sense to just integrate this into the "History" section. Other sources probably would say when each institution joined or left, since it was generally about the same time as funding came in or ran out, it seems. Not sure when we will have time for this, but will try that. W Nowicki (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

To follow-up, I was able to dig out some announcements to cite most of them, and removed the rest, so it should be cited enough now. More can always be added as more is published of course. Could someone take another look and eval the other items please? W Nowicki (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg "It has an interface designed to hide the complexity needed to do this from the end user. The goal is to make the cyberinfrastructure available to non-technical end users who are not as comfortable using command line tools." is still uncited. The NSF references and the My plant reference could use a bit more formatting (access dates, publisher, date published etc.). Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I spent some more time on it, and it now has 38 references, with many sentences having two or three citations. More would be bordering on "overciting" in my opinion, since these seem not as controversial as what gets by in many other articles that have been in DYK. This is not a featured article review after all, the criteria are just "above stub level" and Did you know/Reviewing guide says one per paragraph. Many sources are papers in scientific journals, with full text that requires payment. It would be unethical for me to add access dates to those I did not access. They were added by the original author, who presumably has access to originals since he works with the organization in question and was a new editor. I was accepting them in good faith, but thought I would do the nominating and some editing to avoid any conflict of interest issues. It also seems very neutral in language compared to other similar ones. Please reconsider, or have a third opinion. Feedback on the hooks would also be helpful. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg It looks fine to me now. I was only worried about the one paragraph and the two (at the time) somewhat bare references. Love the original hook! Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)