Talk:Hershey–Chase experiment/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: SpinningSpark 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not strike any of my comments - I will do that as the points are addressed. If you feel you need to indicate which points you have addressed please use some other method (text, graphic symbol eg tick etc)

There are a few edits that have occured since I started reviewing which are concerning;

Unsourced text added to Legacy section [1]
Some text in Legacy section placed in hidden tags[2] - are the claimed issues with this text going to be addressed?

Lede

The dates in the lede (1952 and 1869) do not appear in the body of the article and are not cited (WP:LEAD issue)

Historical background

"Before Hershey and Chase provided further evidence..." This is the first sentence of the article, there has been no discussion of what prior evidence existed. The sentence thus lacks context.
The last sentence of the first paragraph is uncited - I assume that cite 2 covers the rest of the paragraph, not just the text it is attached to.
"Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment" it is implied in the sentence that, but not explicit, that scientists then stopped believing that proteins were the genetic material. If that is what is meant, it should be explicit.
The whole paragraph is confused, not least because the sentences are out of historical order. I can help copyedit, but the facts need to be clear first. If scientists stopped believing the answer was protein in 1944, how is it "...a few still believed that proteins..." is stated - is that 1862? 1944? or 1952? And who are these few?

I am pausing further review for now and putting the GA on hold as there has been no response on this page. The article seems to be simultaneously undergoing a peer review at this time. It is not sensible to conduct two reviews at the same time in this way and it may be best to withdraw the GA nomination for the time being. SpinningSpark 00:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of zero response on this page from the authors, this nomination is failed. SpinningSpark 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.