Talk:Central dogma of molecular genetics: Difference between revisions
imported>Petréa Mitchell (Article checklist) |
imported>Christopher M. Worsham m (Talk:The central dogma moved to Talk:Central dogma of molecular genetics: more appropriate title) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 09:11, 2 July 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Biology Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Petréa Mitchell 22:05, 27 April 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Is the hypothesis now generally referred to as "the central dogma" or is the name itself merely a bit of historical trivia? Also, is the term usually capitalized, The Central Dogma (as in the text of this article)? If so, then the article needs to be moved (click on "move") to The Central Dogma. --Larry Sanger 09:36, 28 January 2007 (CST)
The phrase comes up so much in current biology that the article is not just trivia, it will hellp many people understand the introductory text in various molecular biology and cell biolgy (and other) articles. I'm not sure, but I think it should be formatted in a title case.I'm not sure enough to move it, though. Nancy Sculerati MD 09:40, 28 January 2007 (CST)
- Biology Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Biology Advanced Articles
- Biology Nonstub Articles
- Biology Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Biology Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Biology Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Biology Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Biology External Articles
- Biology Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Biology Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup