Template:Did you know nominations/List of biophysically important macromolecular crystal structures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Orlady (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

List of biophysically important macromolecular crystal structures[edit]

  • ... that in 1909, hemoglobin crystals from >100 species were used to relate taxonomy to molecular properties. That book was cited by Perutz in the 1938 report of horse hemoglobin crystals that began his long saga to solve the crystal structure?

Created by Dcrjsr (talk). Self nominated at 20:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC).

Link Perutz & hemoglobin please. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I have struck the original hook because it is well over the 200 character max (including spaces). Hooks should be interesting. My suggestion would be to take the first half of it (two-sentence hooks, while technically allowed, are almost never warranted, and the first sentence must end with the question mark), as follows:
As you can see, I've replaced the ">" with "over"; it really should be written out. —BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
As you have stated that two-sentence hooks are not technically disallowed and that the first sentence has to contain a question mark I'm going to try and get one in. But the review first; long enough, new enough. QPQ unnecessary. All sources are offline.
ALT2: ... that a 1909 book revealed hemoglobin crystals from over 100 species, which related taxonomy to molecular properties? It started Perutz's research on the crystal structure. --Launchballer 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Launchballer, if you want to experiment with two-sentence hooks, why not do so with one of your articles instead of here where it will delay things. They're out of the norm, structurally problematic in terms of retaining interest, and your ALT2 is a perfect example of why they don't get used. It would be helpful if you finished your review—reviews must be complete and contain a summary icon indicating their status to be eligible for QPQ credit. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I tried it here because that is where you mentioned that double sentence hooks were technically allowed. But point taken. ALT1 is short enough and sourced; we are good to go with that.--Launchballer 00:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Reiterating Launchballer's tick where it can more easily be seen (this is not a review, just a duplicate icon placed for easy viewing); striking ALT2 as not approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)