The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

DNA is central to modern biology and is arguably the most famous chemical in biochemistry. This article deals with DNA as a molecule, particularly its structure and interactions. It also introduces some of the processes in which DNA is involved in the cell. Self-nomination. The article is 69 kb in total size with 39 kb total readable prose. It has recently been peer-reviewed and is currently a Good article. TimVickers 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this is an FFA, so that it will be correctly archived at WP:FFA, and contain a complete record on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Semperf 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Tone 14:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite support – ClockworkSoul 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great article. First sentence of the "DNA damage" section: DNA can be damaged many different sorts of mutagens. - Do you mean by many different sorts of mutagens? Why is the image in the lead found next to the table of content? This will make the reader scroll up and down while he reads the lead. Please remove the external link at the first image of the "DNA damage" section, this should be found on the image description page per WP:CAP; same for many other images on the article. External links section needs a cleanup, remove everything designed for children or trivial. Unnecessary bold text at the article's first section, just make these links. The third image caption consist entirely of bold text. Add more information about DNA ligase in the "Nucleases and ligases" section. In "Forensics" section: This process is called using genetic fingerprinting or DNA profiling - Maybe it's called genetic fingerprinting? Some image captions lack periods. Replace all "here" in the article referring to images with "in this example". This is all I could find after a 10-minute glance into the article, good luck! Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typos fixed, bolding removed, links changed into references, external links tidied up, a period added to an image caption. The use of "Here" is to join two sentences together, not to refer to a caption. It is used when the first sentence names a topic and the second one provides details. Expanded DNA ligase section and added refs. TimVickers 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, my concerns/questions were resolved on the peer review. Hat's off to Tim for taking on a former featured article, to get it re-promoted! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A core topic, great prose, excellent use of images, summary style and daughter articles, accessible as it should be. Waiting for that little gold star now... Fvasconcellos 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now, for the nit-picks :) In the "Topoisomerases and helicases" section, there are two sentences which seem redundant to me (not in meaning, but in style). The "Forensics" section is not quite up to the rest of the article; it could use some fleshing up. That's all I can think of now. Fvasconcellos 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I change the sentence you thought redundant, or was it another? Forensics section re-arranged a little. TimVickers 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was it — thanks, that was quick! No objections now, sorry :) Fvasconcellos 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--WS 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good structure, language and sources. TSO1D 05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great article, just wish that the History section was longer. I just watched a documentary about the discovery of DNA and it was pretty interesting. CG 12:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history section used to take up half the article, all that content was moved to the History of molecular biology daughter article. TimVickers 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—Very nice indeed. Tony 13:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent work once again. Hope you don't mind, I added a bit to the bioinformatics section and weaseled slightly on the description of the Adleman paper in the DNA computing section - it was a great proof-of-concept, but the actual problem solved was so small that I worry about overstating the magnitude of the practical applications. Opabinia regalis 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good work. TimVickers 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — All references are highly qualified journal papers. Well done for such a general topic! — Indon (reply) — 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great article. --Carioca 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SUPPORT Superb. This is a really great, factually accurate article. Nice work. Wikipediarules2221 04:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent article! Only needs a more detailed picture of a DNA replication.--Artman40 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added. TimVickers 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent article on a subject of substantial importance. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Surprised that it wasn't a candidate before. Also, the German wikipedia's (second only to English by size) article on DNA is featured, and doesn't compare to this one in quality. Mbralchenko 15:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'd like to see some more sources throughout. For example, two paragraphs in the Physical and chemical properties section don't have any sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added general textbook sources to the beginning of the section with these paragraphs as per Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines for uncontroversial knowledge. If there are any specific statements you feel need additional referencing, please add fact tags and I will find citations. TimVickers 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines is only a guideline established by some WikiProjects, whose members objected to the citation requirements asked of good articles. WP:V is policy; a cite should be provided when one is requested. The "guideline" might be useful for internal ranking of articles that don't intend to approach WP:GAC or WP:FAC, but featured articles should conform to WP:V policy. (Which, as I read Tim's response, he is saying he will do, so just clarifying this guideline for the record.)SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional references to everything I could think might need one. Now 114 unique references. TimVickers 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. A couple of more things. First, per manual of style, the article is supposed to start with a right-aligned image. The first image, which is located at the end of the lede, could fit that role. Next, references to images in prose should be avoided. Phrases in parenthesis should be avoided, as well. Everything else looks good, so I'll support, provided those issues are dealt with. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image moved. I can find no reference in the style guide on not referring to images, and parentheses are occasionally useful. If there are any sentences you find unclear due to parentheses, please list them here and I will see if they can be clarified. TimVickers 05:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems with parentheses because they don't seem to be terribly professional. Most of the time, they could easily be replaced with a comma. Phrases in parentheses act as if they aren't important, but if they aren't important then why are they in the article? For refering to images, IMO that fails criterion 1a (compelling or brilliant prose). Additionally, what about the percentage of users who have images turned off or blind people, and what about Wikipedia mirrors that don't include the images? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed five parenthetical statements, but others remain as I feel these are the best grammatical option in these sentences. As noted above, purely stylistic objections that are not defined in the manual of style are not actionable. As to images, if somebody is blind I don't think a reference to a image is going to confuse them at all, they know they can't see images. I feel that in this article, where the structure of a molecule is a primary topic, text references to figures that display this structure add considerably to the clarity of the text. If you feel this approach to discussing structures fails criterion 1A, then so be it. In my opinion it does not. TimVickers 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's fine, then. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you use in a grammar duel? n-rules at twenty paces? :) Seriously, I understand your concern, but I happen not to agree. TimVickers 17:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. It's just a fairly minor thing in a good article. I still support it. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief! Thanks. TimVickers 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Amazing article. igordebraga ≠ 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support satisfies all criteria, though I did correct 'orginism' in the lead. Not sure if teh word really needs to be there at all - delete? cheers Cas Liber 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was vandalism. Removed. TimVickers 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Everyone who has worked on this article, I take my hat off to you, it is superbly done. Satisfies all FA criteria, and then adds some more as well.
• Support has come a long way since it was at WP:FAR. Tarret 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So... When will the article be up on the main page. Looks like the consensus is that it is probably unanimous that it is going to be featured... Mbralchenko 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody. The article is now featured. Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. TimVickers 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.