Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Genetics

Genetics

This is a really fundamental topic, but unfortunately the article has gotten neglected. I've ended up rewriting almost all existing parts of this article -- the introduction, history, and recently all the "areas of genetics". The article was given a "B" grade and, since I've gotten so invested in the article, I'd love to know what I could do to improve the article. (No one has left comments on my work on the talk page...) Does the article need more citations? This has been a past criticism I've tried to address; if you think it still needs more, it really helps me if people give specific examples instead of a general criticism. Hell, just insert some {{fact}} tags... In terms of content, are there topics that could be added that the article would benefit from? Thanks! Madeleine 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay no one has said anything yet, but I've been brain-storming about content to add to this article. The article makes very little attempt to summarize the body of knowledge associated with genetics, but I think it probably should do more. What do you think?

I drew up this outline of how I might go about summarizing the subject. Each of these sections serves as a starting point for people to read deeper into particular subjects:

Features of inheritance

Discrete inheritance and Mendel's observations
Hard inheritance and the Lamarckian fallacy

The molecular basis for inheritance

DNA and the genetic code
Chromosomes, linkage, and recombination

Genetic techniques and technology

Model organisms & genetics
Cloning and recombinant DNA
Sequencing and genomics

Genetics and evolution

Mutation and selection
Evolutionary trees

What do you think? Is this redundant or undesirable in the article? Is there something to add to it? I think "human genetics and genetic disease" maybe should go in here somewhere, but not sure where. Madeleine 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. I started adding stuff to the article, I'll see if anyone hates it. Madeleine 01:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Verisimilus T

Hi, just a couple of comments in passing!

What strikes me most is the style - it's not very encyclopaedic. You spell things out well but should perhaps be a little more authoritative.

For example, the Lede - not very gripping. It doesn't draw me in to the article. Perhaps it would help to try to simplify the language a little - you seem to have striven for conciseness and condensed the phrases to a string of long or technical terms.

It also feels a bit "bitty" - there's little thread or development. It looks like you've tried to summarise other articles more than to present their input into the subject. Maybe there are too many "Main article" links - a wikilink in the text, or a link in a "see also" section, would suffice, imho.

A few stylistic points:

Leading image. Find an iconic picture for the top-right of the article. There must be plenty of stunning abstract images of swirling DNA or the like out there...

Avoid sandwiching text between two images

Watch your spacing around references. After punctuation, followed by a space.

Timetable reads like a list and does not belong in the main article. Perhaps a separate page or graphical timeline would be appropriate.

Bolded links - I'm not sure that this is standard Wikipedia style. May be wrong though.

References - are quite sparse.

I think the main thing you could do to improve this article is to stand back and think what you want to do with it. You've done a sterling job on touching on the many aspects of the subject, but the numerous "main article" links are distracting and make the article itself seem to lack substance. Try to remove section headings and combine the information to produce one coherent story.

One way of doing this would be to work through the history of genetics, pausing to mention each concept as you note its discovery or rejection, and dwelling on the current state of affairs by expanding a little on the applications of genetics, perhaps ending with the potentials for the future. I don't doubt that there are other ways of going about this, but the current page seems too much like an advert for more detailed pages, rather than an entity in itself.

Hope that's given you somewhere to start and not come across as too critical! Do keep me posted with how you're getting on. Verisimilus T 03:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at it! Unfortunately since I didn't get a response soon after posting the request for review, I started out on my own ideas and started adding content to the article, so your review is of something in a state of flux.

What strikes me most is the style - it's not very encyclopaedic. You spell things out well but should perhaps be a little more authoritative. Could I get an example of this? I wonder how I'm not being authoritative ... I have to hedge a lot because scientifically there's a lot of exceptions to things. A different problem, maybe this is what you don't like about it, maybe it's too textbookish in the way it tries to explain things? The bold phrases as definitions, that's definitely textbookish and I'll go ahead and remove that.
The lead is residual from before there was content ("Features of inheritance" and "Molecular basis of inheritance") added to the page, so you're right that it needs a rewrite -- there's no need to talk about the technical stuff now, since it's now present later in the article.
The bitty thing I'll have to think about. I think the {{main}} tags are appropriate, since every section of this article is covered in more depth elsewhere. The article on Evolution, recently redone, does the same thing. On the other hand, most of its sections are much larger. Perhaps sections should be combined -- on the other hand, perhaps they should be expanded -- perhaps I was being too timid in adding material, trying too hard to condense things.
The timeline is a relic, the only thing left on the page I didn't write or rewrite. Because I didn't write it, I guess I was reluctant to remove it, but I did think it might be a good idea (there's a comment on the talk page to that effect), and I see you have the same thought.
I bet that sandwiching is because I wanted those explanatory images in the "DNA and the genetic code" section, I even wanted an image of the double helix, too. I'll try to fix it.
Yeah, references are sparse in part because it's new, and in part because it's general concepts rather than specific claims. I'll have to find sections in textbooks for them.

Thanks for the review. I'll think about how to add even more content to the article and make it more "story"ish than sections. Madeleine 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]