Wikipedia:Featured article review/DNA/archive2


 * 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 kept 22:08, 25 April 2007.

DNA
A featured article should be written in a way comprehensible to laymen - Evolution was recently demoted because of this. However, DNA regularly uses unexplained terms, even in the lead, expecting the reader to read dozens of other articles in order to understand this one. While the depth of coverage is good, the explanation of the subject to laymen is very poor. Vanished user talk 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The article links all of the scientific terms it uses. The Evolution article was de-listed for reasons other than it's lack of appeal to the laymen. Wikipedia should not dumb itself down or try to appeal to a laymen when it could simply link to the terms it uses so that the reader can go to that article and learn it. All wikipedia articles work this way. This is why we have the links to begin with. Just about every featured article works this way. Will you nominate every featured article for de-listment on that basis? Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Specific guidelines this violates are WP:MOSDEF and Technical terms and definitions. Vanished user talk 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read what you just linked. It says "Be sure to make use of the Wiki format and link the term if there is a relevant article." This article does that. Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. But it doesn't say that's a substitute for explaining it. Indeed, there are several guidelines to the contrary:

Vanished user talk 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Make technical articles accessible
 * Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely accessible manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more accessible explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it.
 * Some technical subjects are important to public policy questions (like genetic engineering) or a common subject of curiosity (like quantum mechanics). A special effort should be made to explain these topics. For other highly technical topics, it should be clearly established what field of study the concept belongs to, and if it has any practical applications.
 * Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. In addition to explaining jargon and expanding acronyms at first use, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed).
 * WP:LEAD
 * [The lead] should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.
 * WP:MOSDEF
 * Explain jargon when you use it (see jargon). Remember that the person reading your article might not be someone educated or versed in your field, and so might not understand the subject-specific terms from that field. Terms which may go without a definition in an academic paper or a textbook may require one in Wikipedia.
 * The first time an article uses a term that may not be clearly understood by a reader not familiar with the subject area, such as the terminology of a science, art, philosophy, etc. or the jargon of a particular trade or profession, introduce it with a short, clear explanation that is accessible to the normal English reader or based on terms previously defined in the article. Beware inaccuracies accompanying short explanations of technical terms with precise meanings.
 * Technical terms and definitions
 * When writing technical articles, it is usually the case that a number of technical terms or jargon specific to the subject matter will be presented. These should be defined or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used by scientists.


 * Hi Adam, I've made some changes in the lead to make it clearer and more accessible. Is this now at the level you think is appropriate for the rest of the article? The rule of thumb I am trying to follow is to define processes, but not all the nouns, as defining all the nouns in an article of this size would be prohibitively cumbersome. TimVickers 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that'd probably be at an appropriate level for most of the rest of the article, however, it still seems a bit too difficult for the lead. I'll have a go. Vanished user talk 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've made some improvements, but I'm not sure if the distribution of information between paragraph 2 and 3 is really the best way to do it. Vanished user talk 18:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it's difficult if not impossible to simplify all of these words into laymen terms. Various disciplines of science have their own jargon for this purpose. It's very difficult to put "non-hypogonadal" for instance into a term that means the same thing but takes up just as much space. Sure I could put "Men who have normal levels of testosterone" but if I exchanged every technical word in an article for a full sentence, it would bloat it up to a size beyond comprehension. I think simplifying when is possible is ok, However I believe that wikilinking is adequate in most cases. The DNA seems just fine to me. Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd define "non-hypogonadal" in the lead if it were a central part of the article. I agree with Adam that the lead especially should be comprehensible for non-specialists. For particularly difficult areas, such as Enzyme kinetics an alternative approach is to introduce in non-technical language in the lead and have an additional "basic overview" section at the start to supply a bit more detail. Of course, I'm very open to additional suggestions on how to improve this article - these things are never finished! TimVickers 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a good general rule is "define any term that might not be known by someone who was still able to find the article" in other words, there's no need to define terms that someone looking up "DNA" can almost certainly be expected to know: protein, cell, gene, etc, but anything more obscure than DNA probably needs defined. Vanished user talk 18:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rearranged the lead to give function first, then chemical structure and then transcription and translation and finally, the cell biology of DNA. Specific comments on other parts of the text that appear needlessly opaque would be welcome. TimVickers 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the lead looks pretty good now (certainly getting towards the point of diminishing returns) but perhaps the orginisation of the rest of the article could be improved. What if we moved the discussion of its biological function to the top, then the more difficult (insofar as in the end it gets more difficult) chemistry discussion? Vanished user talk 20:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you perceive the chemistry to be less accessible than the function? I would suggest not doing this move since much of the chemistry is fundamental to understanding the function. As an aside, what are the goals for this article?  If it is to be an introduction for the layman, where does the meat of the article go?  Surely a better solution would be to write new more concise article for the layman similar to the Introduction to evolution article? David D. (Talk) 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The chemistry section seems to go in "deeper" than the biological section, as well as opening with a sentence near-identical to one in the lead. Obviously, some of the chemistry is indeed simpler than the biology, but it does seem that the "Chemical modifications" heading requires an understanding of function anyway, and, arguably, 1.3 (Supercoiling)  1.4 (Alternative double-helical structures) and 1.5 (Quadruplex structures) could be delayed as well. '''You're right, but there are parts of the Chemistry section that go in pretty deep, and refer to biological processes that haven't yet been covered. An interleaved version might work better. Vanished user talk 21:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)''' What about (using the current numberings, and X. for new headers.)


 * 1 Physical and chemical properties
 * 1.1 Base pairing
 * 1.2 Sense and antisense
 * First Paragraph of 4. Genes and Genomes, 3 Overview of biological functions
 * 3.1 Transcription and translation + Paragraph 2 of 4. Genes and Genomes
 * 3.2 Replication
 * X. New section briefly describing mitosis and meiosis, though not in much detail. (Knowledge of this is presumed in section 6) Just a paragraph saying what they are, no real detail.
 * 6. Genetic recombination.
 * X. [New header to collect some moved subsections] Structure (with, somewhere in this section or its subsections, Paragraph 3 of 4. Genes and Genomes.)
 * 1.3 Supercoiling
 * 1.4 Alternative double-helical structures
 * 1.5 Quadruplex structures
 * 2. Chemical Modifications
 * 2.1 Regulatory base modifications
 * 2.2 DNA damage
 * 5 Interactions with proteins
 * 5.1 DNA-binding proteins
 * 5.2 DNA-modifying enzymes
 * 5.2.1 Nucleases and ligases
 * 5.2.2 Topoisomerases and helicases
 * 5.2.3 Polymerases
 * 7 Evolution of DNA-based metabolism
 * 9 History
 * 8 Uses in technology
 * 8.1 Forensics
 * 8.2 Bioinformatics
 * 8.3 DNA and computation
 * 8.4 History and anthropology

What do you think? Vanished user talk 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly, you can't discuss biological functions without first describing the structure of DNA. The structure of this molecule is absolutely central to its functions. This is also the most logical direction to discuss the topics, moving from the basics of what this molecule is, onto the more complex areas of its interactions with other molecules. This proposed change also runs the risk of converting the DNA article back to an over-broad discussion of the processes DNA is involved in, rather than concentrating on the subject of the article itself, the DNA molecule. TimVickers 20:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, perhaps that's not the best title for the new section, but Supercoiling, A B and Z DNA, and Quadruplex structures aren't, as far as I can see, mentioned in the Overview of biological functions anyway, so it made sense to me to delay them to after the biological introduction. Would it help if I made up the new arrangement on a temporary page? Vanished user talk 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it'd probably help if I actually crossed out text I changed my mind about. Have another look at what I actually proposed for the new layout, instead of what I stupidly said about it. Vanished user talk 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could try that and see what it looked like but I still feel it is deeply unwise. Including mitosis and meiosis also seems a random inclusion to me, this is moving very far away from DNA. I think it would be best to only include the processes where DNA plays an active role. Throughout the article I've tried to focus on the DNA molecule, its structure and interactions - with DNA structure, DNA-protein interactions and DNA-DNA interactions forming the heart of the article. We have articles on the processes that DNA controls, so this article shouldn't repeat their content but should take an almost myopic "DNA eye's view" of the cell. TimVickers 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving back to what this review is about, suggestions of alternative ways to organise the article seems to be wandering away from assessing if this article meets Featured article criteria. I thought your initial concern was the prose, have we now dealt with this point? TimVickers 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed most of this should be on the DNA article talk page. Personally, I have not seen any convincing reason to demote this article. David D. (Talk) 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the prose is pretty much fixed. Let's make the jump. I'll copy some text over. Vanished user talk 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So should we close the FAR? I'm confused. Help! TimVickers 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I will close this now (or in the morning) if there's no pressing issues. It's barely past the three month window and I'm not entirely sure I agree with the proposed criteria concern. Marskell 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's close it. Whatever's left is fairly minor and isolated. Vanished user talk 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, kept. As you're now all discussing, remaining issues can be taken up on the article talk. Marskell 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

www.kiddywikipedia.org is the answer. I agree that the words of the development need to be in the article. If people have a hard time understanding DNA the external links is the place to go and find DNA for dummies. I am tied also of Deleters who take out pages by nomination them for delete and it is not done by the peers who understand the subject. DNA getting in here is another sign of beurocrates getting to much control of a good thing. Wikipedia should have three layers, Kiddy, layman and expert. Deletes should not be aloud in expert and laymen except by the person posting it. That way we will see a lot more development in wikipedia. DNA getting demoted Ha Ha Ha. is the april fools day for this suggestion to be made or have the deleters been let out of the asilum.Sic Sic Sic. RoddyYoung 12:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.