Wikipedia:Featured article review/DNA repair

DNA repair

 * Article is still a Featured article.

One single reference; no inline references. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove, inadequately referenced. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove, inadequately referenced. Skinnyweed 19:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  Provisional keep, I like this article and will provide some references and minor reorganization soon. Opabinia regalis 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Finished; extensively referenced now. That required more of a rewrite than I originally planned but I think it's more focused now. I did raise the question of the references for the pathways on the talk page, but it looks like the original creator/s have moved on. Opabinia regalis 06:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As the article now features inline citations, the nominator's criticism no longer applies; perhaps (s)he would like to have another look at the article and outline any other specific criticisms. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 14:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Rationale for FARC no longer applies.PDXblazers 00:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comments on the article's talk. Thanks. User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

--Peta 02:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Josen 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination as Opabinia regalis has reworked the article extensively, and it looks like we can turn it around. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove despite recent changes,
 * 1) The reference system is not set up correctly (number in text do not match with those in the reference list)
 * 2) The lead is overly technical,
 * 3) Lots of discussion of telomeres - without explaining what they are
 * 4) Many parts of the article that discuss primary research still have no references
 * 5) The language and grammar are really bad in places.


 * Voting on a withdrawn nomination aside, further discussion and specific criticisms are invited on the article's talk page. You are right that the references are unwieldy; I've converted them with refconverter. There is, of course, elaboration on the nature of telomeres on the linked telomere page, but an appositive has also been added with a brief description. Opabinia regalis 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep- Their seems to be a lot of good work being done. Give it a chance.  I will also try and  work on some issues next week. --Blacksun 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

--prometheus1 08:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Peta, can you give examples of what you're talking about? specifically:
 * 1) do you still find the lead overly technical?
 * 2) primary research - give examples so that references can be sought
 * 3) poor language/grammar - pls give examples


 * seeing as it appears that there are no more objections, can the "featured article removal" flag be removed from the article?

--prometheus1 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)