Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cell nucleus/archive1


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

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC).

Cell nucleus

 * Notified: Opabinia regalis, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest in the template. More than six months ago, Graham Beards stated on the talk: "the standard of referencing for this article is not of that expected for a Featured Article. It has been over thirteen years since it was promoted and since then FA requirements have become far more stringent in this regard. Is there an editor prepared to update the citations? There are whole paragraphs that have no supporting citations."

Sadly, these issues have not been fixed in the interim. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As a start, I have marked the journal citations as either "Review" or "Primary" (based on the PubMed "publication type" classification) by adding a Review/Primary parameter to all the cite journal templates. It appears that the only paragraphs that are without supporting citations are in the lead and a few short introductory sections whereas the subordinate subsections all contain cites. Boghog (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also deleted an obscure section on the "Fougaro System" that was only supported by primary sources. There may be a few more like this that could/should be removed. Boghog (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your tagging, but I don't think that all the information in the article is sourced. I've added "citation needed" tags (17 of them) wherever the source of information is not obvious. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ", all citation needed tags have been replaced with cites to appropriate secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Thanks to for fixing many of these. Boghog (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section largely centre on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delist. More than a dozen citation needed tags. DrKay (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Working on it. Most are easy to fix. Boghog (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Replaced all but one citation needed tags with relevant secondary sources. For the last citation needed tag, deleted associated text since I could not find any reliable source to support that statement. Boghog (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! DrKay (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There is an extreme MOS:SANDWICH problem everywhere. I suspect that attention to wikilinking is needed, but the topic is too dense for me to follow. would you be able to give this a quick glance to see if there are significant issues relative to WP:WIAFA? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that in my opinion the article needs some serious work to meet the FA criteria. A few issues jump out as I read through the article:
 * Well-written - The prose is not engaging (and I love molecular biology!). It needs a serious copyedit. The fact that SandyGeorgia – regular editor of medicine articles – can't follow parts of the article suggests it could stand to be clarified. There are several places where factoids of varying levels of detail have crept in. The prose needs to be ironed out so they don't startle the reader.
 * Comprehensive - I'm by no means a nucleus expert, but it seems a few things are missing or could be tweaked to make the article comprehensive:
 * The "History" section should be expanded to include post-19th century material.
 * Several sections seem overly human-focused (I'm looking at the beginning of "Structures" now).
 * In Structures>Chromosomes maybe we could replace some of euchromatin/heterochromatin material with a more detailed description of chromosome structure?
 * It seems we have a lot more on the structure of the nucleus than the function of the nucleus. I'm not sure if the balance should be corrected by having less structure information, or more function information. I'm guessing the latter.
 * Here I'll show my biases since I'm a unicellular-eukaryotes guy, but could we spare a few more words for multinucleated eukaryotic cells? It's pretty common across eukaryotes. For instance ciliates typically have a quiescent germ nucleus and an actively transcribed expression nucleus.
 * Focused - on the flipside of the above, some material seems to have crept in that is probably better explained elsewhere (sometimes just in other parts of the article, sometimes in other articles). Examples include the small paragraph on lupus in Structure>Chromosomes, the level of detail on ribosome assembly in Structure>Nucleolus, and more. Also a huge amount of space is devoted to the 7 least important structures in the nucleus (the "Other nuclear bodies" subsection). I'm sure we can come up with a more concise way to describe these structures and their importance.
 * References - Could use an update. The most cited reference is the 5th edition (2004) of Harvey Lodish's Molecular Cell Biology. I have a PDF of the 6th edition (2008) that I'm happy to share, but I can reach out my tentacles and see if anyone has the current version (a quick Google suggest we're already on the 8th edition, out since 2016! My how time flies) and would be willing to share. I do have a more recent PDF of Bruce Alberts' competing Molecular Biology of the Cell, 6th edition (2015), which may still be the current version. Happy to share that as well. Otherwise, we'll just have to do some scraping for recent reviews et al. I've not kept up with broad literature on the nucleus, so I don't really have a head-up over anyone else.
 * The above isn't an exhaustive list, just first impressions. But I think this article needs more than just a dusting-off to meet the modern FA criteria. The good news is that there's tons of literature on the nucleus and it's an interesting topic. I think if a few of us have a bit of time to put in, we should be able to get this article shined up in no time. if you're interested, we can post at WT:MOLBIO and see if anyone else is willing to help out? I'm a bit swamped in real life at the moment, but I can certainly put some time into this article over the next couple of weeks. Ajpolino (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed review.  I have asked WT:MOLBIO for additional volunteers to help.  I will also work to update citations to the  5th edition (2004) of Lodish with the most recent editions of Alberts (2015) and Lodish (2016).  My time is also limited, but I will see what I can do to address some of the other issue that you have raised. Boghog (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is actually a more recent cell biology textbook by Bruce Alberts, Essential Cell Biology, 5th ed. (2019). Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not pinging you above. I didn't check the page history before posting. I believe the Essential Cell Biology series are shorter introductory textbooks, where the Molecular Biology of the Cell series are hefty more detailed books. Certainly both could be useful here., any chance you have a PDF of the more recent Lodish book you'd be willing to share? It'd be nice to see how both are covering the nucleus. Ajpolino (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * fixing ping, I typo'd it above. Ajpolino (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I accidentally found it at some link of questionable legality (on academia.edu, which I hadn't previously heard of). The file I got seems to be safe. So if anyone would like it for this project let me know. Ajpolino (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delist (for now). I agree with Boghog's assessment (no expertise here though). Small additional comment: the second sentence has a word that may be too difficult for the lede (including osteoclasts..).
 * , any updates? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah sadly, just the usual – too much on the to-do list; not enough time on Wikipedia. I'd still like to work on this, but I can't promise a timeline. I suppose we've passed the "two to three weeks" suggested in the instructions, but a few more weeks would be much appreciated. If December comes, and BH and I still haven't gotten to most of this, I'm ok with the FARC moving along without us (of course, we can improve the article after de-listing; but FARC provides some nice motivation). Sorry to be the sticks in FARC's spokes! Ajpolino (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Great it's still on the to-do list . I'm patient with important articles like this. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * we've left articles here for multiple months if there is some inclination there will be progress. Happy to leave this here till the New Year if folks feel they may have time in December to work on it. Otherwise folks can vote and we can archive or whatever Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok I think it'll be a while (months + ) before I can make time to work on this. I'm ok with this being delisted. If we can put together some time and interest in improving it later, we'll bring it back to FAC. Thank you and  for your patience. Sorry to come back empty-handed. Ajpolino (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delist, unfortunate, but hope that Ajpolino will bring it back to FAC when he has time to devote to it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I missed this when it was nominated because I wasn't active at the time - in the last few weeks I've had a little more time for Wikipedia but not enough for a big article like this. I agree with the criticisms above about dated material and sources and unbalanced coverage (replication gets one scanty paragraph shorter than the one on clastosomes??). I think it's time to delist this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.