Template:Did you know nominations/Hazards of synthetic biology
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hazards of synthetic biology
[edit]…that some hazards of synthetic biology might be reduced by creating organisms that use xeno nucleic acids instead of DNA?Diogenes99 (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Source: "The xenobiological systems could be engineered to allow for improved biocontainment, e.g. the so-called ‘genetic firewall’ that aims to avoid the exchange of genetic material through horizontal gene transfer or sexual reproduction between the XB and natural organisms." [1], p. 35
- Reviewed: Allyl glycidyl ether
Moved to mainspace by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk). Self-nominated at 05:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- y Unfortunately, I do not believe the hook as it stands is interesting to the layman due to a lack of the ancillary information needed to make it interesting - "hazards of synthetic biology" comes across as relatively benign, while XNA being a solution to that hazard only becomes interesting when the hazard is seen as something notable. In other words, the hook depends on the user already being interested in the subject matter.
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
To correct the issues with the hook, perhaps you could instead focus on the more sensational aspects of the "hazards of synthetic biology", namely the hazards themselves, as you can 'hook' readers in with those without them already needing to be interested in the "hazards of synthetic biology". -- NoCOBOL 06:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @NoCOBOL: Thanks for the review. I see you're new to Wikipedia. The advice to be "more sensational" isn't really apt for Wikipedia's mission; we're trying to present facts accurately and neutrally, and the goal isn't strictly to maximize clicks. We're not trying to emulate Twitter here at DYK. Frankly, there's already a lot of sensation about emerging technologies like synthetic biology anyway, and it's hard to convey the nuances of something like bioterrorism risk in the space requirements of a DYK hook. The fact that synthetic biology can actually make things safer is, IMO, new and unexpected to most people, and seeing unfamiliar terms invites people to click on them and learn. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I realize we don't want to be "sensational". Unfortunately, I don't see a way to hook people into that article without being so, at least to a moderate extent, but as you have said I am new and so I've tagged the article for a new review; get a more experienced set of eyes on it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
ALT1 …that artificial alternatives to DNA called XNA can reduce hazards of synthetic biology by preventing gene flow to natural organisms?Diogenes99 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
-
- Slight edit. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- ALT1b ... that artificial alternatives to DNA called XNA have been proposed to reduce some hazards of synthetic biology by preventing gene flow to natural organisms?
- I like this hook, but before accepting please add a sentence to the subsection Hazard controls>Intrinsic so the reader does not have to read so carefully. Diogenes99 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Diogenes99: It's the last paragraph of the Intrisic section, and is also mentioned in the lead. I've done some rewriting to make it a bit more prominent. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): The hook fact(s)...must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source.
- @Diogenes99: Okay, done. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): The hook fact(s)...must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source.
- @Diogenes99: It's the last paragraph of the Intrisic section, and is also mentioned in the lead. I've done some rewriting to make it a bit more prominent. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I like this hook, but before accepting please add a sentence to the subsection Hazard controls>Intrinsic so the reader does not have to read so carefully. Diogenes99 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Slight edit. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- I realize we don't want to be "sensational". Unfortunately, I don't see a way to hook people into that article without being so, at least to a moderate extent, but as you have said I am new and so I've tagged the article for a new review; get a more experienced set of eyes on it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This is all good to go with ALT1b, @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): Diogenes99 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
