Wikipedia:Peer review/Cyclol/archive1

Cyclol

Hi, I'd value your input on how to bring this article to FA status. It's already had some scientific peer review. Thanks! Willow 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, these automated objections may have been dealt with already; please see Talk:Cyclol. Willow 17:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing article. Meaningful review is over my head, but I did find this sentence: "Wrinch proposed that steric complementarity as one of chief factors in determining whether a small molecule would bind to a protein." Was "as" meant to be "is" or "was"? It would be nice if the two uses of bullet points could be turned into prose. –Outriggr § 01:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I count four article-space links to Cyclol; is it possible to link more related articles to this?—or perhaps it's off the beaten path enough to be hard to interlink. –Outriggr § 01:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Outriggr! Unfortunately, there are not that many articles that might link here since, as you say, it's mainly an obsolete theory and a little off the beaten path. I did fix up the "was", though — thanks! I'll work on the bullet points when I get a chance; User:Opabinia regalis called that to my attention as well. Willow 17:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. Many, many thanks for that other thing as well. :)[reply]