Talk:Molecular diagnostics

Molecular diagnostics has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 9, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Molecular diagnostics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Molecular diagnostics is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Biology or Medicine

General question - does this belong in Biology or Medicine? I'd particularly like to know what User:Timtrent thinks, as he originally put it in Biology. Ian McDonald (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have put it in both. Ian McDonald (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the lack of response. This is nowhere near my field. I knew it was Biology, but that was as far at the time as my knowledge ran Fiddle Faddle 16:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation

There is an issue in US that some molecular diagnostics labs might use tests that are sold as "research use only", this avoiding FDA approval processes.^[1]

I've deleted this in the article tidyup, but I'm leaving a comment here on the talk page, including the reference, in case anyone wants to put it back.

Ian McDonald (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gibbs, Jeffery N (1 April 2011). "Uncertainty persists with RUO products. FDA may be considering more restrictive approach with research use only assays". 31 (7). Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. Retrieved 4 September 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Wikimed feedback

A request has been made for some GA feedback on WikiProject:Med prior to review. That thread can be found (here). LT910001 (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Diagnostics (astronomy)

Apparently, it's also a term in astronomy. As there's no page for that, I'm not putting in a disambiguation.

But if you are so inclined, see:

this stellar cluster study
Wikipedia:Hatnote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drianmcdonald (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Molecular diagnostics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Evolution and evolvability (talk · contribs) 23:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC) It's god a good amount of information and seems pretty acessible to non-specialists (particularly important for a medical article). I think it could do with a couple of diagrams though. Perhaps the techniques section could do with something simple to illustrate the points? Hope that helps T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the good article review, Evolution and evolvability. Good articles are assessed against the six good article review criteria, of which I have transcribed below. If you feel that the article does or does not meet these criteria, you may then promote or fail the article accordingly. If the article is lacking, you may also work constructively with the nominee to get to a quality you are satisfied meets or exceeds the criteria. As this is your first review, if you need any help, please drop a note on my talk page. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thank you LT910001, still getting to grips with protocol! The question table really helps focus. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The quality of the prose is good. Statements are easy for a non-technical reader. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Typically the History section is at the top. Otherwise complies.T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Excellent referencing throughout T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	High quality references, largely from peer-reviewed journals T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No obvious original research T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It could do with a bit of expansion of the techniques section and, in particular, clearer links between which techniques are used for which diagnostic applications. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fairly broad and balanced coverage of applications. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral tone. Doesn't seem opinionated or overly favourable towards a single topic. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The current images is fine but insufficient. Some simplified illustrations of assays and of the information output that they can give would be helpful. Either one that summaries several different assays and outputs, or multiple smaller assay diagrams. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)
	7. Overall assessment.	Eventually yes after some edits, particularly image-related. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk)

Conclusion

Thanks for your review, Evolution_and_evolvability, and hope you had a wonderful Christmas (if you celebrate)! There's a little more to be done if you've finished, see: WP:GAN/I for some instructions if you've finished your review. Reviewing is a fascinating way to learn how to edit and expose yourself to many different subjects. If you're interested in reviewing other articles, I recommend you have a skim of the list here: Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations, choose one or two articles you're interested in, and then start the review! --LT910001 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I've altered the GA status to 'onhold'. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thank you for taking a close look. That's valuable feedback. I've addressed 1b; 3a unfortunately requires domain knowledge that I don't have; and 6b will take some time (as I'm going to have to create the diagrams myself).

User:Jmh649, why do you say that See also sections are deprecated? WP:ALSO does not deprecate them (although it advises against duplication).

User:Evolution_and_evolvability, is there any possibility of putting this on hold for another couple of weeks? I may not yet have time to create the diagram before the 7-day hold runs out. Ian McDonald (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you may want to try posting your diagram request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop, they're quite helpful.Ian Furst (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about we say until the end of January? There's no way you'd be expected to do corrections in 7 days over Christmas! T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a busy January, but I have realised that there are some diagrams that I don't have to make myself, because NIH already has. I've added their illustration of Molecular Diagnostics and Gene Microarrays, which I think makes the overall topic and that specific example much more understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drianmcdonald (talk • contribs) 13:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last issues have been addressed and the reviewer hasn't been active of late, I'll step in and pass the article. Wizardman 18:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you wizardman, I only had the talk page watched, not the article so didn't see the updates and fixes. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular assay

A positive test 35.134.209.2 (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[News-1] Gibbs, Jeffery N (1 April 2011). "Uncertainty persists with RUO products. FDA may be considering more restrictive approach with research use only assays". 31 (7). Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. Retrieved 4 September 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[1]