Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Article Creation and Improvement Drive is a monthly collaboration to improve molecular and cellular biology articles to good or featured article status.

/History - For past winners.

/Removed - For removed nominations.

/Update how-to - For updating the collaboration of the month.

[edit] Introduction

To vote or nominate you have to be a registered user with at least one contribution that is not a vote. Any molecular and cellular biology related article may be nominated except:

• Articles that are currently at featured status
• Articles in edit wars

A great place to start is the project worklist, which contains a list of many articles that have been identified as being of interest to the project, as well as their importance and state of completion.

[edit] How to nominate

===[[Article]]===
{{MCB CoM|start=July 5, 2009|votes=1}}

; Support:
# ~~~~

; Comments:
* (put your reason for nomination) ~~~~ 

----

{{MCBnom}}{{to do}}

[edit] How to vote

Sign with "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of the article you want to vote for and then update the vote count in the template. You can vote for as many articles as you like.

[edit] How the article is selected

Article with most votes on the first day of each month in 00:00 GMT is selected as "The current MCB Article Improvement Drive article". If two articles have same number of votes, the older nominee wins.

The next selection will be on Saturday, 01 August 2009 00:00:00 (UTC)

[edit] How an article is removed from the list

Articles need one vote per three weeks to stay on the list. If the current date (July 5, 2009) exceeds the "stays until" date of that particular article, the article entry is generally removed from this page and moved to page for removed nominations.

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Gene expression and retinue

4 votes. Nominated May 9, 2008; needs at least 5 votes by August 1, 2008 Overdue

Support

1. Squidonius (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
2. - TwoOars 05:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
3. ClockworkSoul
4. ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 02:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• not sure if it is doable but not one article but a cluster: Gene expression/Regulation of gene expression + Post-transcriptional modification/Post-transcriptional regulation + Post-translational modification/Post-translational regulation have been quite talked about in the wikiproject (Translation (biology) needs a picture and Transcription (genetics) is tagged). Problem is interconnectivity and too much information in the wrong places with other being lacking. Central dogma of molecular biology is the network hub and it is a good article. I made the tpl:Molecular Biology which is not enough (and it stinks). The roman emperors have cool vertical templates, which might be an idea. Squidonius (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• That's quite a proposal, but looking over the articles they do clearly need quite a bit of love. Perhaps we can drop a message over at the newly formed WP:WikiProject Genetics? – ClockworkSoul 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As they form a series and I needed a break, I made a template, here is the spoiler: template:MolBioCentralDogma (I stole the formatingfrom the romans) will finish it next week eventually...----

(Fixed that link for ya) Thats really snazzy! Is it ready for prime time? – ClockworkSoul 08:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this... but one of my pet peeves is the misunderstanding of the central dogma to mean DNA -> RNA -> protein, because inevitably someone follows this with "and reverse transcriptase violates the central dogma!" (It does not. The central dogma is about the directionality of information: it can go from nucleic acid to nucleic acid or protein, but cannot be transferred from protein to protein or protein to nucleic acid.) I worry this template would only promote this misinterpretation. Would it be possible to use another name for this template, eg. "gene expression"? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 13:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Dogma is as the template name as it is the most catchy word in Mol Bio (that is why F Crick incorrectly chose it). gene expression actually works better (less awesome though). Consider it changed. The template picture remains as it is (simple), if that is ok. --Squidonius (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the template to the various pages but I did little or no editing. I do not think major edits may be needed, so this may be dropped. --Squidonius (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zygote

4 votes. Nominated May 11, 2008; needs at least 5 votes by August 3, 2008 Overdue

Support

1. ClockworkSoul 18:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
2. - TwoOars 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
3. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Artephius (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• This poor article, important (importance=top) even at the secondary school level, is of a truly poor quality (class=stub). Truly, it needs some love!
• I'd never marry a zygote. It sounds unsexy.Unfree (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phospholipid

2 votes. Nominated December 3, 2008; needs at least 3 votes by January 14, 2009 Overdue

Support

1. Artephius (talk) 3:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Proquence (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Phospholipids are very important in many aspects of biology, from the plasma membrane to signaling. This important article (I personnaly believe it should be rated top but its rated high) has very poor graphics, no list of phospholipid classes and does not even describe anything related to phospholipids other than their ampiphatic character. It definitely needs some help to bring it up to high school biology level.
• I do agree. Phospholipids are very important biomolecules. It is surprising to see such an important article having such less information. This needs immediate attention. Proquence (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photosynthesis

1 vote. Nominated January 4, 2009; needs at least 2 votes by January 25, 2009 Overdue

Support

1. Kasper90 (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Really important and intresting article, but at this moment the article is a complete mess. It has got a B status, but it should have C because it really needs a substantial cleanup. This is the same with articles that are related to photosynthesis, like:
  Light reactions, photophosphorylation, dark reactions, Photosystem II, photosystem I, P680, P700
  Kasper90 (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)