Talk:Caenorhabditis elegans/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Narayanese (talk · contribs) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intitial comments

Lead and research sections
- What kind of research is this model organism good for?

Have added sentence to lead - think rest is covered in Research section. Iztwoz (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microanatomy
- Gut granules: I think this should be moved to its own article, link through a mention somewhere in this article; given too much weight at present

Disagree with this. The section is quite small and relevant and of interest in article. Iztwoz (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology
- What eats these worms, is it known? (predators/parasites)

Added sentence. Iztwoz (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realise now there's very little known, but I like the addition you did. Narayanese (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Findings
- Move/merge chromosome number and sex determination into genome

Merged to Reproduction and development but may need a citation. Iztwoz (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SCICITE it doesn't actually need that citation - it's textbook stuff.

- Move/cut down the section on meiosis to reproduction - is radiation resistance really that notable discovery?

It's the repair mechanism involved in the radiation part that is of interest so overall would agree that since it is missing in other organisms is a notable discovery. Iztwoz (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also feel that info on meiosis is more relevant to findings than to reproduction section Iztwoz (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genome
- "Introns, or non-expressed sequences, are 26% of the genome" is unclear if its intergenic as well - why would you only give the number for introns?
- Why the dislike of whole genome shotgun?

rm changed link to genome sequencing as per entry and rm arguable criticism of technique Iztwoz (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

**(nitpicking, unimportant) "gene predictions": new genes would be discovered by mRNA sequencing or so, not dependent on prediction from dna sequence, right? Gene model

Evolution
- The cited paper is weak evidence.

Article history is stable. References and external links look fine. Sasata's tags have point though.

I might edit the article myself, don't be afraid to revert my changes - I don't want to end up approve my very own version for GA. Narayanese (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the genomes of other species in the genus like C. brenneri: I think those are already done, I can find files for them at [1]. Narayanese (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted in text and gave ref Iztwoz (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Narayanese (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding '10% of the 20,000 genes in its genome are 'essential', meaning that RNAi knockdown of those genes resulted in "sterility, embryonic or larval lethality, slow post-embryonic growth, or a post-embryonic defect." ': this is not what the cited article says (Nonv is its category of essential genes), and it makes little sense to call genes whose knockdown causes post-embryonic defects or slow growth 'essential' since the worms manage to survive. Narayanese (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed very unclear and not true to ref....rm this part and replace with more generalised ref on genetic interaction. Iztwoz (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think all your points have been covered. Let me know if I've missed anything...thanks Iztwoz (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, they are. Happy to see the little rough edges of the article going smooth through your edits. Narayanese (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On GA criteria

1a. Clear prose: yes, it's easy to read. Exception are Latin-derived terms like vermiform for worm-like, but at least they're wikilinked.

1b. Layout: good. Headers make sense, and the lead while near the minimum length manage to cover the basics.
2. References: they're ok.

3a. Broad coverage: yes. It has must-haves like Brenner, WormBase, composts, cell count, genome sequencing date, RNA interference, taxonomy.
3b. You say death fluorescence and oocyte radiation resistance are not straying into too obscure topics, so I'll trust you. I see from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22872477 that meiosis has notable worm research, so fine with it's inclusion in the section.
4. Neutral: yes. I'll give you a while to have a changce to revert my edits though.

5. Stable: yes.

6. Images: there are, and they're appropriate to the subject and have a free license (CC-SA).

Narayanese (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more

"Some large, intergenic regions contain the usually found repetitive DNA sequences. " This is not really true to the spirit of what the source says: "For example, although only 26% of the genome sequence is predicted to be intronic, it contains 51% of the tandem repeats and 45% of the inverted repeats. The 47% of the genome sequence that is predicted to be intergenic contains only 49% of the tandem repeats and 55% of the inverted repeats.", so I would remove that sentence. Narayanese (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Iztwoz (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the deadlink and the bare url citation. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]