Talk:RNA interference/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
imported>David Tribe No edit summary |
imported>David Tribe (→Aims) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Aims== | ==Aims== | ||
The current intent of this article is to be reasonably novice friendly, but even then the topic is intrinsically technical. Wikipedia has some real experts writing theirs now, and its heading towards highly molecular technical discussions that are complete out of reach for beginners, an I suggest we don't go there [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 19:15, 4 February 2007 (CST) | The current intent of this article is to be reasonably novice friendly, but even then the topic is intrinsically technical. Wikipedia has some real experts writing theirs now, and its heading towards highly molecular technical discussions that are complete out of reach for beginners, an I suggest we don't go there [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 19:15, 4 February 2007 (CST) | ||
===Citation style=== | |||
See [[Help:Citation style]] [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 21:33, 6 February 2007 (CST) | |||
---- | |||
RNAi is ridiculously amazing. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 17:30, 16 December 2006 (CST) | RNAi is ridiculously amazing. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 17:30, 16 December 2006 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 21:33, 6 February 2007
Aims
The current intent of this article is to be reasonably novice friendly, but even then the topic is intrinsically technical. Wikipedia has some real experts writing theirs now, and its heading towards highly molecular technical discussions that are complete out of reach for beginners, an I suggest we don't go there David Tribe 19:15, 4 February 2007 (CST)
Citation style
See Help:Citation style David Tribe 21:33, 6 February 2007 (CST)
RNAi is ridiculously amazing. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 17:30, 16 December 2006 (CST)
Jargon
I think there's too much Jargon in this article. I can't find anywhere what RNA stands for or what RNA is. The article needs to be introduced in a more accessible manor. It should be understandable to someone who is form outside the Biology field. The reader is thrown in the deep end here. The most technical section, "Cellular and molecular mechanisms." is the first. The topic could be more gently ramped by giving the history and background information first and dealing with the technical descriptions nearer the end after the use has learned the background.
Also, what's with all the bold text. Words seem to be bold at random. Derek Harkness 05:04, 26 December 2006 (CST)
Thanks so much
David Tribe 17:20, 26 December 2006 (CST)
I think this is a wonderful article, I found it extremely clear and interesting. Of course it's not aimed at a lay reader, but I think not all aticles can or should try to be. I think perhaps the opening paragraph could be worked on a bit, I juggled it perhaps not very successfully, but I'm happy to nominate this for approval when you want. I've copy edited the article but not otherwise contributedGareth Leng 07:05, 31 December 2006 (CST)
Further text relating to miRNAs added. Content finished; need to now focus on clarity and typo consistency. WP is far more advanced scientifically and way out of reach for beginners. David Tribe 18:58, 4 February 2007 (CST)
May need to re-draw complicated PLos Flow chart figure David Tribe 19:17, 4 February 2007 (CST)