Template:Did you know nominations/Homologous Chromosome
- The following discussion 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 Matty.007 19:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Homologous chromosome
[edit]- ... that when homologous chromosomes don't separate correctly it can lead to fertility problems?
5x expanded by Josemags (talk), Quigend (talk), Stack0711 (talk). Nominated by Josemags (talk) at 23:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC).
Per the list provided by User:Allen3 here, I stopped by to check for compliance with Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines for medical text. The good news is that the hook is sourced to a secondary review, compliant with MEDRS. The bad news is that most of the sources do not include a PMID (PubMed identifier), meaning it will take some time to assure that this article is properly sourced, and there is a good deal of uncited text. I am not in favor of passing a DYK without verifying that the article is sourced correctly, and since this topic is well over my head, I will ask at WT:MED that others look in. In the meantime, it would help if the nominator would add PMIDs on journal sources, as that makes it easier to check primary vs secondary sourcing. I only stopped by to check MEDRS compliance, and will leave the rest of the DYK review to DYK reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have these specific textbooks on hand but I do have journal access. There is one minor error that I found science-wise: "cohesions" are not released as the homologs pull apart, cohesins are. And to be super technical, the cohesin ring isn't the only thing involved - securin is too. A more detailed explanation of what happens as homologs come apart would be useful. Obviously this doesn't need an explanation as detailed as in the cell cycle articles or the articles on individual proteins, but you should give a solid picture of what occurs as homologs separate. I have looked through the journal articles and checked for plagiarism from those sources and did not find anything. However, Sargent et al. does not actually explain how homologous recombination works. I would recommend citing one of the standard genetics textbooks for that information and/or Kuzminov. As I'm one of the OAs for this course, I obviously can't approve it for DYK once these issues are resolved so this article still needs an independent review, preferably by someone who can check those book sources. If that reviewer doesn't have access to the textbooks, I can order copies of the books and send copies of the journal articles if that would be helpful. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Full review needed. Reviewer should also make sure the issues raised by Keilana have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll first comment that I don't think all of Keilana's concerns are necessary for a DYK article -- some of these are more on the level of GA/FA review. So, to break things down:
- "cohesions"/cohesin -- this seems like a typo on the part of the author, which I have corrected.
- securin -- I don't believe the article implies that cohesins are the only protein involved in homologous chromosome cohesion. While it may not be complete in its treatment of the topic, it is not factually inaccurate, and completeness is far from necessary for DYK.
- "solid picture of what occurs as homologs separate" -- again, this would be a valid comment for the article to reach GA status, but is not necessary for DYK.
- Sargent et al -- in the current version, this reference is only used for facts about double stranded break repair, which it does explicitly support, and not homologous recombination, so I will take this as addressed.
- In short, I believe the factual content of the article is OK, the hook is well sourced, and the size is OK. However, I do not have access to all of the textbooks (although one of the main references is available online for search only). The citations I have checked seem to be OK for plagiarism/paraphrasing, but I do not have the capability to check all of them (ideally somebody with access to plagiarism check software like Turnitin should do that). Given that it is unlikely that anybody will volunteer to do so manually (as this would be almost as much work as writing the article in the first place), I would suggest that we either take a chance on there being close paraphrasing or remove this from the DYK queue. -Kieran (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, based on some other reviewers' policies on other articles, I'm willing to assume good faith on the offline references, and call this ready. Everything else checks out. I would propose some minor tweaks to the hook:
- ALT1: ... that when homologous chromosomes don't separate correctly it can lead to fertility problems and cancer?
- I'll first comment that I don't think all of Keilana's concerns are necessary for a DYK article -- some of these are more on the level of GA/FA review. So, to break things down:
