Wikipedia:Peer review/Genome-wide association study/archive1

Genome-wide association study

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I just did a major update to the genome-wide association study article. This included an almost complete rewrite plus a major expansion. I would like to make sure that others agree with these changes. Perhaps even agree with as a step towards featured article status.

Thanks, LasseFolkersen (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead comments from Cryptic C62

"(GWA study, or GWAS)" and "(WGA study, or WGAS)" I would prefer to see one convention used throughout the entire article to avoid confusion. Use "GWA study" or "GWAS", but not both.
"The first GWA study was from 2005" The phrase "from 2005" implies that the study began in 2005, but a much more relevant piece of information would be when the study was published.
"Today, hundreds or thousands of individuals are tested." First, avoid "today" and similar words, such as "now" and "recently". These are examples of imprecise language.
"Surprisingly," Avoid this and other such words per MOS:OPED.
Unless I've missed it, the lead doesn't seem to mention anything from the Limitations section. Ideally, the lead should summarize every major section in the body of the article.

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - on some of the opening sections

We don't need "Figure 1" in the lead caption, that's not how we caption things here.
Caption also doesn't need a full stop.
Other lead comments are captured nicely above by Cryptic C62.
Would be tempted to expand DNA before using the abbreviation and to link it.
Instead of just saying (SNPs) perhaps say (referred to as Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs))?
Last part of the Background section is unreferenced.
"higher than 1," perhaps I'm old-fashioned but we used to say "higher than unity"...
"manhattan plot (see figure 1)" perhaps move the graph to a more relevant location, i.e. here?!
"that 80-90% of height" en-dash per WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]