User talk:Maria Kahlert (SLU)/sandbox

Marias comments

I now finally edited the page after students and teachers were done. The idea is to replace the current text on the DNA barcoding Wikipedia page with this one. Students and teachers of the PhD course PNS1069 have together with experts from DNAqua-Net discussed how to restructre and update the original barcoding page, as we felt a) the organism paragraphs should be moved to specific Wikipedia pages (done), because barcoding nowadays is so different depending on the target organism, and b) we felt the text needed an update as technology is developing fast, and a new structure after we have removed the organism parts.

We agreed to first ask Tony 1212 to have a look on what we did befor we replace the orginla page with our work, which is the step we would like to do next. We appreciate of course the work done by others earlier, and have a) used existient text where possible, and b) contacted the active users on the DNA barcoding talk page to announce and discuss our plans regarding the restructuring. We hope Tony 1212 gives his ok to publish and let other users come in for further improvements.

With our best wishes, all PhD students, teachers and experts from DNAqua-Net (links: https://dnaqua.net/ & https://www.slu.se/utbildning/program-kurser/kurser/?sprak=en&anmkod=P0037.1819) --Maria Kahlert (SLU) (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olle's first comments

Good work!

I see that sometimes the same reference is appearing more than once (e.g. 65-67). In the citation tool, there is a tab called Re-use that you should use instead.

I'm not sure if I understand the Christmas food DNA extraction picture. How is it related to the rest of the article?

This section is empty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maria_Kahlert_(SLU)/sandbox#Reference_libraries_and_bioinformatics, either delete or add information.

Add Pollen barcoding here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maria_Kahlert_(SLU)/sandbox#Further_Reading

Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rees comments

Hi Maria, you and your team have done a lot of good work so far as I can see. Just a few comments on a rapid read through (bearing in mind that my knowledge of the subject is very limited):

Lead section - "That DNA section (alsom called "sequence")" - typo in "also"

"Background" - I think that since current barcoding can be traced back to the seminal "2003 paper by Paul D.N. Hebert et al. from the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada" this phrase and date from the original page is worth retaining in some form.

"The "Folmer region" of the COI gene is commonly used for distinction" -- maybe prefix "for animals", and note that (for reasons xxxx), other genes are preferable for non-animal taxa "see below" ....

"Bioinformatic analysis" section - maybe is one level too deep in the hierarchy??

"Potentials and shortcomings" > "Potential" - "DNA barcoding (i) can increase taxonomic resolution and harmonize the identification of taxa, which are difficult to identify or lack experts" - no comma needed before "which" (affects the meaning of the statement)

"Population parameters[edit]" - something wrong here with appearance of the word "edit" (not a link)

"Shortcomings" - need to discuss documented or potential cases for mismatches between conventional (morphological) and barcode based taxon discrimination - i.e. small % of cases where the method either fails to distinguish allied species (or maybe splits accepted species too finely - not sure about that one) - and reasons why (unless this is covered elsewhere in the article; if it is, this should probably be the best place)

"Further reading" - probably need at least some stub articles for groups not listed here e.g. animals in general (not just fishes), higher plants, Fungi, Protozoa

Hope this helps and good luck... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also under "Reference libraries and bioinformatics" > BOLD - probably would be good to add a date for the cited dataset size, as this is obviously growing continuously. BOLD should also be a wikilink as there is already an article for "Barcode of Life Data System" (with a different figure for number of sequences held??)

I think CBOL (Consortium for the Barcode of Life) might also need citing somewhere since it also already has a Wikipedia article and is still relevant??

Regards - Tony

Thank you so much for your comments, Tony. I will edit the page directly now (the course is finished by now, so I guess I need to take care of the page myself for the moment), and then publish it hopefully. Best wishes, Maria Maria Kahlert (SLU) (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]