Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Full genome sequencing/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:29, 28 February 2009.

Full genome sequencing

 * Nominator(s): DoctorDNA (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because... full genome sequencing is going to be one of the most important new technologies of our generation and this article brings this rapidly emerging topic to light. It presents multiple facets of the technology, such as it's history, the technology that is being disrupted by it, as well as its potential societal impact. By the end of the year this new technology will have been commercialized and without a few years a significant number of all newborns and adults will have undergone full genome sequencing. This is a major component of Kurzweil's Singularity. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorDNA (talk • contribs)


 * Oppose Nice work on the article so far, but it's not ready yet. There are unformatted references that need titles, publishers, and access dates; short sections that could probably be organized better, along with an unnecessary "Company links" section; as well as several unreferenced paragraphs. Gary King  ( talk ) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.
 * Per consistency purposes, some references are not formatted with cite templates.
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template
 * Does not use a citation template


 * http://www.genengnews.com/articles/chitem.aspx?aid=658&chid=2	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead-- TRU  CO   23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation templates are not required. Consistent, fully formatted references are. Budding Journalist 18:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes they are not, but consistent formatting is. Some of the refs are fully cited with templates while other aren't. I striked one of them because it doesn't require it, but others need some type of ref formatting. In addition, to the last ref comment. TRU  CO   21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but your repeated use of "Does not use a citation template" is misleading. Just say "Citation not fully formatted" or similar. Budding Journalist 22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not writing the "Does not use a citation template" message, I am copying it from my script I use to find the problems, so sorry if it is misleading. -- TRU  CO   22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Then please take a few seconds to just do a replace all on "Does not use a citation template" before submitting; it's misleading to nominators. Budding Journalist 22:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I will do a better job in explaining as to what the problems are. So I guess I'll await your update on these minor hassles.-- TRU  CO   22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Note: I'm not the nominator). Budding Journalist 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that shows my reading skills :P-- TRU  CO   23:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: In addition to having unreferenced paragraphs (the second paragraph of Older technological approach, the single-sentence last paragraph of  Race to commercialization, the first paragraph of  Societal impact) as mentioned by Gary King, the article lacks any images . See WP:FACR 3.
 * While a picture of rows of chromosomes suggests "genome", I don't see that as adding much informative value to an article about full genome sequencing. Emw2012 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the writing of the article doesn't meet my idea of FA requirement 1a, that the article's "prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." Though there are more, two stylistic issues that immediately pop out are excessive use of italics and at least several run-on sentences.
 * I couldn't quite put my finger on it before, but agree with Xasodfuih when he notes that the article reads like a promotion in several places. For example, in  Societal impact: "Inexpensive, time-efficient full genome sequencing will be a major accomplishment not only for the field of Genomics, but for the entire human civilization because, for the first time, individuals will be able to have their entire genome sequenced."  Many would agree that this technology will have significant impact on medical practice, but the wording of the example promotes the subject without providing much real information (see Avoid_peacock_terms). In its current form, the entire section seems like it could be cut down to one or two shorter and less promotional sentences, and merged into another section. Emw2012 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article's lead also needs significant work. Per FA requirement 2a, an ideal lead is concise and "summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections."  The first sentence in both of the lead's two paragraphs is repetitive.  Other than that, the lead in large part doesn't summarize the content that follows in the article body.  Each section should have at least one sentence in the lead which provides a high-level summary of the section's content.


 * I was contemplating opposing this nomination, but think that these issues may be resolvable in two weeks' time or less (given the article was apparently written in little over a day). Good work thus far, but there's considerable work needed to get this article to FA status. Emw2012 (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - References need formatting, some are lacking publishers and/or last access dates, some are just bare urls. When that is done, I'll be happy to check the references for reliable sources. Note, however, there is no requirement to use cite templates, the only requirement is that your references be consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Opposed. Article needs significant expansion to provide sufficient context to non-specialists. For example, the 1st section opens with: "One possible way to accomplish the cost-effective high-throughput sequencing necessary to accomplish full genome sequencing is by utilizing Nanopore technology, which is a patented technology held by Harvard University and Oxford Nanopore and licensed to biotechnology companies." This will elicit a gigantic huh from 99.99% of the readers. I also have the impression that this article veers towards promotion. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional issues:
 * Titles such as "Dr." are not used in wiki articles.
 * Fixed. Emw2012 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Xasodfuih (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:LEDE says that the lede should be a summary of the article. You are using it as an introduction.
 * The tone is suitable for an editorial in Nature Genetics, but not for a Wikipedia entry, e.g. "As of February 2009, there are no indications that any of these companies have been hindered by the global recession. And thus, the race appears to be proceeding forward at full speed.[citation needed]"


 * Oppose for now Good article, but there's some thing I'd like to see imporved.
 * This article is lacking meaningful descriptions of the actual sequencing technique(s). It links to high-throughput sequencing (which itself is a redirect to DNA sequencing, which contains all of 3 sentences on high throughput techniques) and Nanopore (which describes the Nanopore technology, but only has 2 sentences on its application to DNA sequencing). This article need a MUCH better description of the sequencing techniques, with diagrams.
 * This article needs a picture or two of the actual sequencing machines used to do this kind of work. And I can make it really easy for you, because I happen to have a few of these pictures on my hard drive from a few years back when I toured a local biolab. I've uploaded them here:
 * image:ABI_PRISM_3100_Genetic_Analyzer_1.jpg
 * image:ABI_PRISM_3100_Genetic_Analyzer_2.jpg
 * image:ABI_PRISM_3100_Genetic_Analyzer_3.jpg
 * My knowledge might be a little dated here, but if it is shotgun sequencing is the basis for whole-genome sequencing, where's discussion about the algorithms being used to line up the DNA fragments? Error rates?
 * Where's the discussion about gene and protein expression? I thought they were nearly as (or more) important than the actual sequencing itself?
 * You might want to drop a note on User:Rajah's talk page. I know him IRL and he knows *a lot* about this topic. He might be able to give you some pointers.
 * I suggest changing "Societal impact" to "Medical applications" Raul654 (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, an interesting article, but it's not ready yet. First of all, the article needs a good copy-edit to fix many issues with the prose and to remove much redundancy, (for example, "in order to",  "genotyping..... to genotype", "..such as those mentioned above",  abbreviations which are only used once, "WGS", "FGS", "EGS"), and  padding ("In order to facilitate their full genome sequencing R&D initiatives"). There is a big problem with regard to accessibility; I am not an advocate of "dumbing-down" but much more effort needs to be made to make this article less of a chore to read by the non-specialist. I am a specialist—I have sequenced the genes of viruses—but I found this article hard going in places. More images, particularly diagrams are needed to help the reader to understand the sequencing methods. Lastly, the references are badly formatted and too few. Graham Colm Talk 10:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Graham. I've gone through and fixed the prose issues -- or, hopefully, most instances of them -- lain out in the second sentence of your comment. Emw2012 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.