Jump to content

Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations/Genetic disorders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was include all but Marfan syndrome and Von Willebrand disease. Titoxd(?!?) 02:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic disorders

[edit]

These are important articles, the most common genetic disorders. WikiProject Medical Genetics works on these. NCurse work 06:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way! It is the problem of WikiProject Medical Genetics. We started to work one week ago, and we're active. Anyway, Medicine wikiproject is not active. How many active participants we have? Have a look at the history of medicine project page. :) I'll fix these, just give me some days. NCurse work 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... so should we pass these now or wait instead? Titoxd(?!?) 05:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I'm on wikiholiday. And I can't fix all of these articles now. But the Medical WikiProject is active and works hard. So for the end of august, every article will be ready. NCurse work 07:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, I recommend setting the list aside for now, bringing it back out when the Project feels the articles are ready. If nothing else so that the later versions get in instead of the current ones. Nifboy 06:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With tear on my face I must say ok. :( We will work harder... NCurse work 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the list. It seems that all articles are A-B or FA-class. NCurse work 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked over these - sorry I didn't see your update note earlier. I would have classified Albinism and Color blindness as only B-Class based on references, but the Downs article is now FA. While accepting that the first two and most of the Bs are poorly referenced, I think the articles are all of usable quality. The topics are nearly all fairly important disorders, Downs particularly so IMHO. Therefore I would be OK with including the list as is. Walkerma 02:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'd also include:

NCurse work 07:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could add in the first and last of these, they are both very nice articles, but the middle two look to be poor Bs and they don't have the importance of something like Down syndrome.

Proposal based on the above, listed by Walkerma 04:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Include:
Reject:

Consensus:

Support:
Oppose:
Amend: (give specific changes)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.