Wikipedia:Featured article review/DNA repair/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC) [1].

DNA repair

Notified: PrometheusOne, Opabinia regalis, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology

Review section

This 2004 promotion was last reviewed in 2006 and has large swaths of uncited text, sandwiching of images, bolded text where it shouldn't, lots of lists, and was flagged by Graham Beards in February, but no progress made. The article has tripled in prose size since its last review, so most of the prose is unvetted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this goes back a long time - I think this was the first time I crossed paths with a "featured" anything! The article is definitely a bit out of date, and has accumulated a lot of cruft.

Big uncited blocks of often confusing text - especially the "mutation" section. The "Medicine and DNA repair modulation" section is totally uncited, obviously bad for a section on human health, though the content looks accurate as far as I'm aware. The cancer section is also poor. "Nuclear versus mitochondrial" has no citations and I'm not sure about the quality of the content - there are enough important differences that mitochondrial DNA repair could probably be its own subarticle.
Crufty sections - see especially "translesion synthesis". A lot of the really fine molecular details in the "Global response" and "cancer" sections should be moved to daughter articles.
Seems like some kind of strange content split happened at some point: the oddly titled DNA damage (naturally occurring) article has some overlapping content, and the plain title DNA damage redirects to DNA repair (which is hardly about... non-naturally occurring damage).
Dated content - should cover CRISPR-Cas9 at least a little, the "technology" section barely counts and isn't a good title. A bunch of primary research from the 90s is cited, fine if those are foundational papers in the field but that doesn't seem to be the way most of them are used. (I don't know the field well enough to recognize if this is a sourcing or a writing issue without more research.) Olaparib and other PARP inhibitors have a legitimately interesting mechanism, but covering them and not mentioning cisplatin seems strange.
Some content gaps/due weight issues. No mention of the effect of the host DNA damage response on viral replication (or vice versa). Either this or the DNA damage article should mention somatic variation and accumulated mutations, there have been some really interesting single-cell sequencing studies on this. Most references to "prokaryotes" are really just talking about bacteria (and mostly just E. coli); archaea are less well-characterized but not totally unknown (eg https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29741625/). Not convinced the caloric restriction content needs so much space in a top-level article; the molecular observations are from model organisms.
Images look dated and structures of important components aren't represented. A lot of the individual proteins and protein complexes here have structures in the PDB - not the most important issue but once the cruft is cleaned it would make sense to make some nicer, more modern-looking images of the key proteins.

I haven't really been around in the last few months and am really busy IRL, so I don't expect to have the time to fix these issues, but hopefully that's a starting point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great points by Opabinia above. In addition:

Up-to-dateness: The only sections to have been added / significantly updated in the last 10 years have been "Single-strand damage", "Initial steps", "DNA damage checkpoints" (per whocolor). A quick histogram of citation years indicates cited references are skewed towards either 2005/6 or 2012/13 (somewhat in line with the main editing periods). These aren't in and of itself problems, but suggests that sections may be getting quite out of date. Much of the mechanisms of damage causation haven't changed much, but there's plenty of research on sensing and repair processes, therapeutic relevance, etc still coming out. A few reviews worth checking:

Powell, Simon N.; Bindra, Ranjit S. (2009-09-02). "Targeting the DNA damage response for cancer therapy". DNA Repair. 8 (9): 1153–1165. doi:10.1016/j.dnarep.2009.04.011. ISSN 1568-7864. PMID 19501553.
Roos, Wynand P.; Kaina, Bernd (2013). "DNA damage-induced cell death: From specific DNA lesions to the DNA damage response and apoptosis". Cancer Letters. 332 (2): 237–248. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2012.01.007. ISSN 0304-3835. PMID 22261329.
Mouw, Kent W.; Goldberg, Michael S.; Konstantinopoulos, Panagiotis A.; D'Andrea, Alan D. (2017-06-19). "DNA Damage and Repair Biomarkers of Immunotherapy Response". Cancer Discovery. 7 (7): 675–693. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-17-0226. ISSN 2159-8274. PMC 5659200. PMID 28630051.
O’Connor, Mark (2015). "Targeting the DNA Damage Response in Cancer". Molecular Cell. 60 (4): 547–560. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.040. PMID 26590714.
Nimeth, Barbara Anna; Riegler, Stefan; Kalyna, Maria (2020-02-19). "Alternative Splicing and DNA Damage Response in Plants". Frontiers in Plant Science. 11: 91. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.00091. ISSN 1664-462X. PMC 7042379. PMID 32140165.

The response and repair sections are still often unclear when they're talking about different organisms.
The chart images sadly PNGs so can't be easily edited. The c:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop may be able to help out in converting them to vectors for subsequent updating.
The application section might benefit from mentioning deliberate mutagenesis in Mutation_breeding and in driving viruses to Error_catastrophe.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb's script is highlighting most of those sources as unreliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Cell is unreliable? That has to be a mistake. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: to have a look at what the script is doing above, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UPSD#Limitations, third bullet in the nutshell section. See also this fix (which won't work everywhere, but will work here). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, no improvements (this is sad). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, no substantial improvements made. We should copy the good constructive criticism and new sources above to the article's talk page, so they don't get buried. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Unsourced paragraphs, needing page number citations from December 2014. Lead could be better structured rather than one long paragraph followed by two very short ones and a video. DrKay (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. There have been no improvements since I raised my concern in February. Graham Beards (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.