Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sequence profiling tool/archive1

Sequence profiling tool

The current article attempts to concisely present the concept of sequence profiling tools in Bioinformatics and their increasing relevance in holding the pyramid of sequence data in genetics/molecular biology. Surprisingly, no single source exists to describe and review such web based tools; the information contained herein is very valuable in providing an overview and their design. The article is not a compilation of the numerous bio-software that specialize in providing focused information or even public portals providing links to valuable databases.

I conceived the article and wrote a stub quite sometime back and have been helped occasionally in formatting and fixing. So, Yes! it’s a self-nomination - a vanity attempt Though small enough to start with, the definition I provided happened to be the only “web definition” in Google results page whenever one typed ‘What is sequence profiling tool’, making me realize that more intelligent minds were focusing their efforts in defining more important issues. It is then that I thought of making the contribution more comprehensive by clearly outlining the concepts and classifying the different kinds of sequence profiling tools and an example in each of them. This article is one such attempt.

I am not a wiki expert by any standards in terms of creative formatting, so I might need help in editing to begin with. Meanwhile, I have reasons to believe that the piece I compiled qualifies to be considered as a Wikipedia’s ‘feature article’. I hope the votes confirm this.

Nattu 04:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - All fair use images need fair use rationales. --light darkness^(talk) 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebut - All images are screenshots from public portals that are free for all researchers Nattu 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This needs work on tone, prose quality, referencing, and comprehensibiity; see What is a featured article?, and perhaps examine the style in which other FAs are written to see what you should be aiming for. Much work is still needed before this reaches featured status. --Robth^Talk_Cleanup? 05:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebut - The tone, prose quality, referencing, and comprehensibiity have been gleaned from Bioinformatics and related sites. I am aware the prose might require copyediting and I need help Nattu 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - per above and the intro is too short and there are no references. Rlevse 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Sorry, its lead section must be expanded. Anonymous__Anonymous 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebut - Lead section has been appropriately expanded. More amount is better included in Introduction which again has been expanded. Nattu 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - per Robth. 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rebut - refer response for Robth Nattu 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, sourcing and notes is now a pre-req for any new featured article, no? gren グレン 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - References and external links have been updated and restored Nattu 06:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nicer not to have used the word Rebut here—this process shouldn't be a confrontation. Now, although it's quite well written, there are still some things that need polishing. For example,
- "web based" must be hyphenated. I note several similar hyphenations in the same paragraph.
- "one or more government entities"—which goverment is this?
- "For example, a researcher might use the sequence alignment and search tool BLAST to identify homologs of their gene of interest"—if you pluralise "a researcher", the grammar will be correct. Pluralising is usually the best solution to the gender problem ("his/her"). Same with "the user".
- I was howled down by colleagues for minimising the punctuation in ", e.g.," and ", i.e.,"; the full punctuation is still the accepted way. This looks a little awkward: "a traditional search engine e.g. a plain Google search".
- "richly interactive screen views within each window"—just "in"?
- "The query format is more flexible which includes"—grammar/punctuation.

Please don't just fix these examples and write Rebut. I'm indicating that a thorough run-through is required, preferably by someone who's new to the text. Tony 11:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Due apologies for the 'rebut' word. Thanks for suggesting the corrections. 'government-entities' refer to the NCBI at the NIH and other similar groups funded by the government. I agree with the edit by User:Opabinia regalis. I would be very happy for greater participation in the copyedits by other wikipedians. Nattu 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So ... you mean the US federal government? Not the NZ government? Tony 02:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]