Talk:Histone/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 19:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll take on this review. I think the article is quite a long ways from reaching GA standard. Here are some problems:
- the lead is quite short and does not adequately summarize the contents of the article as per WP:LEAD
- there is some material in the lead that is not present in the article body, for example, the facts about 90 micrometers of chromatin and 120 micrometers of chromosomes.
- The biggest problem: the sourcing in this article is way off balance. There are sometimes multiple citations for what seem to be relatively simple statements of fact ("Five major families of histones exist: H1/H5, H2A, H2B, H3, and H4.[2][4][5][6]"), while in other cases there are unsourced sentences, and many unsourced paragraphs. I would expect a higher diversity of secondary sources for an article like this, there are many out there. The secondary sources that are being used (e.g. Lehninger 2005) does not cite page numbers, making it difficult to verify the material. The high number of primary sources, and the tendency to use multiple citations of primary soueces (e.g. "H3K56 is acetylated by the p300/Rtt109 complex,[91][92][93]") is a problem for an article that should mostly be sourced to textbooks and review articles. All of the unsourced bits would have to be properly cited before we could go any further. I also note that the nominator has not made any edits to this article; I would think some biochemistry background and access to scholarly sources, including/especially textbooks, would be required to undertake this sort of effort. Is the nominator prepared for this? Esculenta (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Esculenta and Firestar464: Thanks Esculenta for taking on this GA review and for your comments. I have attempted to provide a better summary of the whole article in the lead in these edits. There is still a lot more work to be done. If Firestar464 take the lead in addressing Esculenta concerns, I would be willing to help. Boghog (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for the offer of help Boghog, but given there's been no response from the nominator for more than a week (despite the nominator being quite active on Wikipedia during that time), I don't think this review is going anywhere. Closing now. Esculenta (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)