Wikipedia:Featured article review/RNA interference/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 kept 01:13, 11 February 2008.

RNA interference[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: User:Narayanese, User:David D. User:Opabinia regalis, User:Brighterorange, User:MarcoTolo

In most ways, this is a very good article, but its prose is unduly difficult - we could do a lot better in explaining the basic concepts of RNA interference to the layman without that much difficulty, but as it stands, this article makes no attempt to do so. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem, perhaps not even a difficult one to fix; however, this process seems a good way to pull editors in, and, with exams and a certain amount of stress in my life, I'm in no state to go it alone. Vanished user ^talk 21:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Criteria in doubt: 1a (well-written) 2a (lead prepares reader for the rest of the article)[reply]

Is TimVickers on board? Also, please follow the instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page regarding notifications, and post notice back to here (see other FARs for sample). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a go at this. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those image captions are mini-books. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the length of the image captions and made some minor modifications and clarafications throughout the article. I also added short definitions for some of the more obscure terms in the article so that the reader does not have to follow the links to find them. In response to Vanished user's objection about the difficulty of the prose for the layman, I think that this article's topic is relatively advanced and thus it is appropriate to use quite a few advanced terms. If the readers do not understand the terms that are not defined (and there aren't very many that are not defined in the article), they are welcome to follow the links for a definition. I feel that it would be distracting to exhaustively explain every term in this article.

One other potential problem I saw is that the "History and Discovery" section may not provide citatations for some of its statements. It is probably ok how it is, but I mean, we are talking about FA here, so someone may want to look at it. If that section is ok as is, I feel this article is FA status. Thingg (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree: It's actually, at its heart, a relatively simple process (for a biological process). It's just newly discovered. If we can successfully explain protein transcription, DNA replication, the Krebs cycle, and glycolosis to school children, we can explain this to them too, and may well do so in schools in another couple decades. At the least, the lead should be simple and clear. Vanished user ^talk 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe you're right. I'll have to take another look at it. Thingg (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the trend here has been toward simplification and accessibility for a long time now, and I actually think quite a bit of the article has improved fairly noticeably since the featured version, but the lead isn't one of those places. The current one contains less information for what doesn't look to be a significant advantage in clarity. Here's the diff from the featured version: [1]. We've lost a reference to miRNA and to the fact that this is a mechanism found only in eukaryotes - both important facts. Call me crazy and/or out of touch, but I don't see what is gained by putting the (ordinary English) term 'cleave' in quotes, or parenthetically defining the word 'endogenous' (again, not really a technical term), or changing 'hexaploid wheat' to 'wheat which is hexaploid'.

This isn't really that esoteric a subject, but we can't be re-teaching transcription and translation in every related article. What here is unclear to someone who's already familiar with those processes? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a) and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove As a layperson, I would expect to understand the lead, which "should be written in a clear, accessible style", but I'm afraid, I don't. I haven't read the rest, as I would not expect to understand the body of the article, which obviously should go into the detail of it, and be written for an audience more or less familiar with the field. DrKiernan (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is this article aimed at the layperson? For me, a better guide would be can a biology undergraduate understand it. This topic clearly requires some understanding of the terminology. Should this go against it being an featured article? David D. (Talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must say I'm reassured by your acceptance of my proposed rewrite of the lead, which indicates that I did, in fact, understand it. So, I'm striking my remove. DrKiernan (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only a few uncited paragraphs here; if we could get them cited, I don't see a need to remove this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks fine after TimVickers, GrahamColm, Narayanese, and David D. got in there and fixed the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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