Wikipedia:Peer review/Genome-wide association study/archive1

Genome-wide association study
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

I just did a major update to the genome-wide association study article. This included an almost complete rewrite plus a major expansion. I would like to make sure that others agree with these changes. Perhaps even agree with as a step towards featured article status.

Thanks, LasseFolkersen (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead comments from Cryptic C62


 * "(GWA study, or GWAS)" and "(WGA study, or WGAS)" I would prefer to see one convention used throughout the entire article to avoid confusion. Use "GWA study" or "GWAS", but not both.
 * "The first GWA study was from 2005" The phrase "from 2005" implies that the study began in 2005, but a much more relevant piece of information would be when the study was published.
 * "Today, hundreds or thousands of individuals are tested." First, avoid "today" and similar words, such as "now" and "recently". These are examples of imprecise language.
 * "Surprisingly," Avoid this and other such words per MOS:OPED.
 * Unless I've missed it, the lead doesn't seem to mention anything from the Limitations section. Ideally, the lead should summarize every major section in the body of the article.

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments - on some of the opening sections
 * We don't need "Figure 1" in the lead caption, that's not how we caption things here.
 * Caption also doesn't need a full stop.
 * Other lead comments are captured nicely above by Cryptic C62.
 * Would be tempted to expand DNA before using the abbreviation and to link it.
 * Instead of just saying (SNPs) perhaps say (referred to as Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs))?
 * Last part of the Background section is unreferenced.
 * "higher than 1," perhaps I'm old-fashioned but we used to say "higher than unity"...
 * "manhattan plot (see figure 1)" perhaps move the graph to a more relevant location, i.e. here?!
 * "that 80-90% of height" en-dash per WP:DASH.