Wikipedia:Peer review/Gene expression/archive1

Gene expression
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it was the Collaboration of the Month article of the Molecular and Cellular Biology project for a long time and it looks pretty good to me. However, I am interested what still needs to be done to bring the article to GA or FA status. Thanks a lot, Firefly&#39;s luciferase (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * Biggest problem I see with this article getting to GA is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. There are whole sections, especially towards the end of the article, which do not have any references at all.
 * The lead is only two paragraphs long - per WP:LEAD it can be up to four paragraphs long. As a summary, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
 * Make sure that symbols and abbreviations are explained at the first use - for example T and U should be clarified in Therefore, the resulting 5' → 3' RNA strand is identical to the coding DNA strand with the exception that thymines [(T)] are replaced with uracils [(U)] in the RNA. This helps to explain what is going on in the next sentence A coding DNA strand reading "ATG" is transcribed as "AUG" in RNA. See Provide context to the reader ✅
 * Another place to provide context is to add wikilinks or make sure they are linked at the first use, for example intron is used three times before it is linked (should be at first use), and eukaryote is used 13 times before it is linked the first time. ✅
 * There are a fair number of fairly short (one or two sentences) sections and paragraphs, which impede the flow of the article. Can they either be combined with others, or perhaps expanded?
 * Some headers do not follow WP:HEAD - for example watch capitalization in "Post-Transcriptional regulation" and try to avoid repeating the title of the article or parts of the title in the headers if at all possible. For example "Expression system" - can this be changed (it is OK if it cannot). Or "Gene networks and expression" could just be "Gene networks" (we already know the article is about expression). By the way, this section has no refs and is only two sentences long.✅
 * "Expression system" can hardly be renamed since this is the common expression in the field. --Mashin6 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Watch use of bold text per WP:ITALIC, and also use double quotes " not single quotes per WP:MOSQUOTE: see "For example the simple repressor 'switch' expression system in Lambda phage and the lac operator system in bacteria."✅
 * The article uses bullet point lists in a few places. If possible, could these be converted to text?
 * Text is generally good, but watch WP:JARGON in places.


 * Thanks for all these helpful comments, which are an excellent guide to improve the article. It still needs work as I see now. :-) More inputs are appreciated as well. --Firefly&#39;s luciferase (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome, while this is not a WP:GAN requirement, it is for WP:FAC - the images will need to have alt text for readers that cannot see them - see WP:ALT ✅
 * I also forgot to mention that a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - one possible model may be Cell nucleus, or there are others listed at Featured_articles. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks, --Firefly&#39;s luciferase (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)