Template:Did you know nominations/Horse genome
The following is an archived discussion of Horse genome's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Ashwin147 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Horse genome
[edit]- ... that the horse genome contains 2.7 billion DNA base pairs, and horses have over 90 hereditary diseases similar to those found in humans?
- Reviewed: King's Bastion - done
- Comment: First part of DYK sourced to footnote 1 in the article, second part to footnote 2
Created by Montanabw (talk). Self nominated at 18:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC).
Created 1 April and nominated 2 April, and is about 2400 characters, satisfying date and length criteria. QPQ completed. However, I find that too much of the article consists of names of individuals, research centres, or horse breeds. Perhaps a small addition using one of numerous scholarly articles is worthwhile. I've made minor changes to the article; another concern is bare URLs in external links, which should be cleaned up. The article would also benefit from a short intro describing the horse genome, and splitting information about funding and research (ie - most of the first and second paragraphs) into a separate section, as I find it clutters the text. Mindmatrix 21:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- All excellent advice for if and when I take this article to GA, but what is actually needed to pass DYK? I see nothing on this in the criteria. I agree the article is start-class or c-class at best, but I don't see any reason that this doesn't pass DYK as it sits. I welcome improvements, of course, but I don't really have the time to pump this article up a lot at the moment. What is so critically flawed that it can't pass DYK? Compare, for example, Bovine Genome Montanabw(talk) 23:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- My concern was that it appeared to be pumping up word count by creating lists in prose. I guess this one is OK, but I would have preferred a little more substance to the article. There are two more minor issues to resolve, though. First, please clean up the references; the publishers should be listed as, for example, "College of Veterinary Medicine", not "Vet.cornell.edu". Second, there are two red-linked categories; either create and populate them, or delete them from the article. Once that's done, it's good to go. (BTW: I'm not sure why you're comparing to bovine genome, as that one is too short to pass DYK.) Mindmatrix 13:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh heavens, not pumping up word count, just that the article was a fast creation off of work I was doing on a navbox template and I realized that we had no article on the topic! ;-) To the extent it's a bit light, I am not a geneticist and I wanted to be careful not to have things in there that would be tagged as not correct or not well-enough sourced. (So many peer-reviewed articles are behind a paywall, argh) I ran reflinks on the cites, so can clean that bit up, no problem. The breeds are significant, as the comparisons across breeds have some real interesting things going on (particularly debunking claims that one breed has no ancestry from another, etc...) I'll see what I can do with the cats problem, thought they were OK, but I must have not checked properly. Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Tweaked article, anything else? (I noted Bovine genome merely as a comparable article) Montanabw(talk) 18:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
All issues addressed. (I've added a citation for part of the hook claim in the article.) Good to go. Mindmatrix 19:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll assume good faith for recent additions, as sources require registration or are offline. Regarding the photo, I think the background is too distracting to be included in DYK. That's just my opinion, of course. Mindmatrix 21:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll skip the image. You can be reassured that nothing changed for the hook. Some of the new material sources to existing refs. The new refs are, I think, all to other articles at The Horse which is the same publisher source as the earlier links to the same publication, it's a free registration there (but I've noticed it's being a bit quirky at the moment). The stuff on leopard complex was the source cited in Appaloosa, which is an FA and all sources there passed that review. Anthony 2007 book can be backed up by some other articles if needed, it's just there for sourcing dates of domestication, which is extensively discussed in the horse domestication article linked in the article. All should be fine. Montanabw(talk) 22:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)