User:Ase15b/sandbox

Make a new subsection going into detail the history of a phenotype. The part of August Weismann and Francis Crick's historical contribution is not cited and a year of publication is not mentioned. I don't think the Francis Crick statement about central dogma of molecular biology is necessary. I would either remove it completely or relocate it because it doesn't fit in with the information in that paragraph very well. It's a bit confusing. The facts about Richard Dawkins' extended phenotype are good statements, but they need an introduction or lead-in sentence. Right now it seems out of place.

"Most molecules and structures coded by the genetic material are not visible in the appearance of an organism, yet they are observable (for example by Western blotting) and are thus part of the phenotype." Should be reworded/clarified to avoid confusion. They mention that human blood groups are an example of phenotypes, but do not say how.

They show images of Biston betularia morpha (peppered moths) but never mention the moths in the article. What makes these images relevant? I recommend talking about the Biston betularia morpha in the article or replacing the images with pictures of random variation in Drosophila which is mention in the article.

Citations missing from the entire second section "Phenotypic variation".

Explain and clarify phenomics.