Template:Did you know nominations/DNA base flipping

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

DNA base flipping

(

)

... that DNA base flipping is used in DNA replication, DNA methylation and RNA transcription?

Reviewed: Andrew Ang

Moved to mainspace by Magladem96 (talk), Amontei2 (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 11:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC).

Philroc's Reviewer Checklist

The article

New? This was moved to mainspace 22 days ago.
Long enough?
Appropriate citations? Both of the sentences (yes, there are two) where the fact is mentioned aren't cited.
Dispute templates?
Plagiarism?
Neutral?

The hook

Properly formatted?
Short enough?
Neutral?
"Hooky"? This hook has the form "... that X is Y?".
Final verdict: The article was moved to mainspace more than 5 days ago, and the sentences where the nom got the facts from aren't cited. Please nom, cite those sentences.
By the way, I'm a new reviewer, so if I did something wrong, please inform me. Phil roc 22:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Philroc, it was moved to article space on 24 March and I nominated on the 31 March, you must be getting the time period from today's date or something. However it is over 5 days, but I was nominating the class's work that could meet the standard and I was hoping they could get some leniency. What is the cross against dispute templates for? Does it mean failure or that there are no templates? Currently there are no dispute templates ( like citation needed). The hooks is in the lead paragraph, and the sentence has three references on it. Did you find plagiarism? Since the hook is not hooky enough how about:

alt1 ... that DNA replication, DNA methylation and RNA transcription all use DNA base flipping? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The crosses in dispute templates and plagiarism are good. I am trying to say it as if you were telling someone in real life. Like... "Dispute templates? No. Plagarism? No.". I'll review the alt hook. Phil roc 14:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the article is supposed to have been created within the past 5 days. Phil roc 14:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Philroc's Hook-Only Checklist
Properly formatted? I fixed the problem myself so now it's .
Short enough?
Neutral?
"Hooky"?
Final verdict: ~~This meets all the hook criteria (except for the formatting which I fixed myself). Good job! Phil roc 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)~~

Actually, it doesn't meet all the criteria. Even though it wasn't mentioned in the checklist, the two sentences where you got the fact from still aren't cited. Please cite them. Phil roc 15:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:Philroc I have added the citation to two other sentences that mentioned the fact. It was referenced in the lead already, but now also individual sentences now have their own reference too. So I hope these are the sentences you want to see ref tags on! Thanks for the speedy alt1 review. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You did it for one, but not for the other. The uncited sentence looks like this: "DNA methylation is the process in which a methyl group is added to either a cytosine or adenine." After you cite that sentence, I will review the article again. Phil roc 22:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I have added another reference for that particular sentence. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you did cite the right sentences. I was going a bit fast and made a mistake. Sorry. Anyway, I actually won't be reviewing again since this article was moved more than 5 days ago. You could try improving the article to Good Article status within the next 5 days. Until then, see you later! (Note: No, I am not failing this. I am just waiting 5 days until the article gets promoted to Good Article status.) Phil roc 22:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Calling for a new reviewer. Removing the X Rejection symbol, since Philroc says he is not failing the nomination. FYI - if it were nominated as a GA, it would have to be nominated on a new template. Full review needed by new reviewer with more experience on DYK. To clarify, as noted by the timeline of Graeme Bartlett above, this article was 7 days old when nominated. The article history verifies it was moved from draft on March 24. Not a big deal in the long run.

D9 "Five days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations.

Also, all those green ticks and red Xs next to every item might be confusing our housekeeping bot. This looks like a really interesting, intelligent article that would be good for the main page. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

My mind can't take this. Please give me some resources so I can know DYK some more. Phil roc 12:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We're all in the "my mind can't take this" club at times. DYK rules are in more than one place, and we generally don't know them all until we come across each scenario and find a solution (or get corrected by another editor). That's what I meant by a more experienced editor. As for the ticks, of all colors from the template, the housekeeping bot responds to those (I think, anyway) when it updates the Queue. If I got that incorrect, another editor here will correct me. The purple ones can be used on individual items. The others are generally whether the entire nomination has passed, didn't pass, or needs a new reviewer. We've got the Rules page, Supplementary guidelines and Reviewing guide for the basics. Don't worry about absorbing it all at once. We are all on a learning curve, and issues are posted on the Talk page. Personally, trial and error have taught me to stay away from subjects or sources I don't understand. Because things come up like another editing saying "in the article, such and such doesn't mean that...." But that's just me. — Maile (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think it is humans that read these DYK nomination pages and look for approved ones to build into the prep areas. The humans will be looking for the words "good to go", and the tick, at least that the last statement has a tick after all problems are fixed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Maile is absolutely correct: the list of approved hooks on the queue page is generated by a bot that looks at the icons and bases the current status on the final icon found. That's why icons should only be used once in a review entry as the summary status—it's best put at the beginning, with the explanation following—rather than for each item in the check: it's easy to determine the current status of the review by looking for the icon. When I assemble a prep set I frankly dread seeing the words "good to go" because it's usually attached to a substandard review that doesn't explain most or any of what was checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reiterating call for new reviewer to do a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Disregarding 2 day delay in nomination. It is a great science article on an important topic and, especially as it has turned out, it could have sat here for two more days. Several editors commented on or contributed to the article as shown on the talk page, which added to the article and gives greater confidence of its quality and that it meets DYK criteria.

Prose portion is long enough. Neutral; deals with a scientific process. 45 inline citations/references. Almost every sentence has a citation but this is no criticism. The subject is rather complicated and these citations add confidence that the article is picking up key points from the research. The article is easier to read than the research as well. A good summary. Some of the facts can not be stated much differently without distorting them. Some of the references are Open Access. No evidence of copyright violation, plagiarism or close paraphrasing.

The article may be of most interests to scientists and those interested in science but I think that the very term "base flipping" could attract other curious readers. DNA is rather widely known as well so I don't think people will be put off by it. I don't see much difference between the original and the alternate so either one is ok. So the hook is interesting, proper length, proper formatting, neutral, no reference to a person, and all of the terms in the hook, which is stated as written in the introduction, are linked to references to the same concepts in the article. QPQ is done. No image for the DYK. Images in article are public domain or Creative Commons licensed and from Wikimedia Commons. Ready to go as far as I am concerned. Donner60 (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)