Talk:Mating of yeast/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: RowanJ LP (talk · contribs) 17:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: BluePenguin18 (talk · contribs) 04:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
At 269 words, the lead is succinct and establishes that S. cerevisiae will be the model yeast for discussion while comparing against other yeast species
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Spot-checked citations 21, 35, 46, 65, and 67 at random:
Source 21 is incorrectly credited to the book authors Lennarz and Lane instead of the relevant chapter authors Sutton and Sternglanz. More importantly, Sutton and Sternglanz (2004)'s discussion of the MAT locus is brief and does not support the claim about genetic manipulations

Source 67 is Catalini et al. (2021), a paper on Drosophila melanogaster that is irrelevant to the claim and involves flies. Upon further inspection of this issue, Source 41 is Malek and Long (2019), another fly-related paper irrelevant to the claim it is meant to support.
Sources 21, 41, and 67 were all added by RowanJ LP, so rather than investigate further, I will give them one week to assess the relevance of all the sources they added before I reassess whether the citations are actually sufficient for sustaining these scientific claims. If you need more time, please reach out!
On reanalysis, the issues remain. I am now concerned that RowanJ LP added sources that appear to discuss yeast mating without considering whether they actually support the specific scientific claims being made. Once again, I am giving a week and asking that RowanJ LP reassess all of the citations they have added to this article for relevance:
Source 21 is now Lin et al. (2022), which minimally discusses the MAT locus, only considering what would happen if MATa replaced MATα in a haploid α cell, as opposed to this claim of what happens when both are present in the same cell.

Worryingly, Source 22 is Lengeler et al. (2000), a paper which never discusses diploid-like yeast cells, much less stating their behavior when starved. Source 22 was also added by RowanJ LP

Source 41 is now Bardwell (2005). While this paper does not explicitly describe the decision to mate as balancing energy conservation and speed, I do think it is sufficiently close to doing so.

Source 67 is now Eckert-Boulet et al. (2011), a textbook chapter that never discusses the HMR region, much less the innate bias of yeast to use this region for DNA repair over the HML region.
C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Article would benefit from a discussion of a-like faker cells that have a1 and a2 inactivated. Currently working on adding this in, but it will take me a day or so to think how to simplify the content Implemented

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comment: ViridianPenguin, are you planning on reviewing this, bcs you should return it to the queue otherwise, so someone else can. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this looked inactive! Yes, I am almost done reviewing the article but have not updated the template over here. I am familiar with the technical aspects of yeast genetics, so I am also trying to keep this scientific article clear and accurate. Should be done by the end of this week! ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, good luck! Neither the review, nor the article had any changes in the past two weeks, so I thought it was inactive. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ViridianPenguin gentle poke, Are you still planning to complete this review? Ajpolino (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ViridianPenguin, it's been two weeks? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91, I can delete this for you if you like, so you return to the queue without losing your place. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the nominator, I just wanted to take over this review as the reviewer wasn't doing anything. Though you should probably delete this, maybe someone else will review and pass it to GA. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ViridianPenguin, final poke - I'll delete this review page to return it to the queue if you don't respond within a week. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If both the nominator and reviewer are nonresponsive I'm not sure it should be returned to the queue, I think it should just be closed as a fail and removed, but not sure if we have a clear policy on this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a clear policy on it, no. @RowanJ LP, I think Ganesha is right that we should fail it if you're not responsive, but if you're around and willing to be reviewed, and just aren't getting a review, please reply here so I know to send it back to the queue with WP:G6 instead (I think that's more fair, assuming you're still willing to do the work of responding to a review). -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for the reviewer before making any responses and I'm willing to be commutative at this time. If there's anything I can do so this process of a GA review can go any faster I will. RowanJ LP (talk) RowanJ LP (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies all around to RowanJ LP for delaying their requested review far beyond the intended week, DoctorWhoFan91 for delaying a review they would have been willing to complete faster, and asilvering, Ajpolino, and Ganesha811 for wasting your time wondering where I disappeared to. College papers got in the way, but I am finally freed up again to handle the review over this weekend. After sailing past my mid-October intent to handle the review, I did not want to comment until I actually had confidence in my availability again. If for some reason this review is not finished by 14NOV2024, feel free to close it! ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 04:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to issues with the citations detailed above, I have given RowanJ LP one week to reassess their added citations for relevance before I return to assess their quality again. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the citations 21, 41, and 67 to something else that might be more relevant/has better information. RowanJ LP (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As described above, issues remain with Sources 21 and 67, and I detected an issue with Source 22 in this re-analysis. Please reassess all of the citations you added in your 09MAY2024 editing for relevance to the specific scientific claims they appear alongside. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For documentation, I am noting that between Jan 2023 and May 2024, RowanJ LP had their GA nominations of Damar Hamlin, Windows 10, and Statin quick-failed because in all three cases, only one citation was changed. While this editor unquestionably added many of the citations to this article, this prior behavior suggests that they see their role as making sure every claim has a footnote, rather than either finding relevant citations or removing unsupported claims. More importantly, DMacks noted in April 2023 that their contributions to Tetranitratoxycarbon, Levomethamphetamine, 4-PrO-DMT, Holmium phosphide, and Tetrahydrocannabivarin all suffered from the improper citation issues that I have highlighted here.

@Asilvering pinging you for guidance on how to proceed. I would still like to give RowanJ LP a week (or more if they need) to find sources that are actually relevant to the scientific claims they appear alongside. However, these issues appear persistent, suggesting the potential need to mass-revert this editor's addition of unrelated papers to scientific articles. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 23:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ViridianPenguin, I don't think we'd ever mass-revert like that for anything shy of ban evasion. If you think this article isn't up to GA standards because there are problems with the citations, you should fail it for not passing criteria #2. Further conversation about the issue in general should probably happen on RowanJ's talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 11:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At that point I was new to nominating articles for GA status, I didn't know the requirement and went off based on how I personally thought the article looked. RowanJ LP (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]