Talk:Caenorhabditis elegans/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 19:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on the review of this article. Here are a few initial comments giving you some things to do before I review the article more fully. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section does not conform with the Manual of style
Several paragraphs are insufficiently referenced. See here for information on inline citations.
There is a "citation needed" tag in one place.
There are too many sections after the References section

Outside comment: Apologies for dropping in, but I wanted to suggest another important thing to think about. First, be wary of indiscriminately adding material just because someone used C. elegans as a model organism in their experiment. The sentence about IGF-like factors increasing lifespan, for instance, doesn't really tell us about C. elegans as an organism; C. elegans is just the tool that was used. Describing Brenner's role in studying and promoting C. elegans as a model organism and a brief description of the really seminal experiments in the field is fine, of course. Similar considerations apply for experimental design. Wikipedia isn't a how-to; the detailed description of freezing response is a bit much. What you'd want, again, is a very general overview of what sort of protocols you can carry out on worms (RNAi, microscopic observation, freezing, etc.) without the detail to actually carry them out. Choess (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another outside comment Sorry for jumping in as well, but I want to expand on the above point by Choess. The scientific importance of this organism is immense, but the information is spread over three separate section and much of it is repeated. I think a concise section detailing the more important studies and uses in research would be better. This article should really concentrate on the biology of C. elegans. I would say there is scope for a Scientific uses of ''Caenorhabditis elegans'' article to be split out if you are worried about losing information. AIRcorn (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your comments! I will try making all the modifications to the article, though it will take a while. It's the beginning of finals weeks at my university and I am working on multiple wiki projects while juggling school work. I'll try periodic updates. GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

Most of the concerns mentioned above have not been addressed, though I see that the "citation needed" tag has gone. I can see that GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL is busy in real life. This is a difficult article to raise to GA standard because of the use made of this nematode as a model organism and the issues raised by Aircorn and Choess. A lot of the information is quite technical in nature and needs good citations to back it up. I am putting the nomination on hold for one week to allow time for improvements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA fail[edit]

I am now failing this article as it does not meet the GA criteria. No attempt has been made since the 6th December to improve it along the lines outlined above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]