Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Genome-wide association study/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 03:38, 10 February 2012 [1].

Genome-wide association study

Featured article candidates/Genome-wide association study/archive1

Nominator(s): LasseFolkersen (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it describes a current key method in the field of genetics. Whenever newspaper-articles currently talk about "researchers finding a gene for something" 9 out of 10 times it is through the use of genome-wide association studies. Billions of dollars are being spent on this method. The article went through peer review in December, and have been extensively discussed through all of January were it was collaboration of the month for the genetics portal. LasseFolkersen (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this FAC unstranscluded and transcluded it as of this time stamp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDRS-- why are reviews listed separately in citations? Is the article sourced mostly to secondary reviews, or to primary sources? I haven't seen this article come up for review at WT:MED, so if it isn't sourced correctly to secondary reviews, it may need more work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this article come up at project medicine? It is a genetics article. I have no idea what you mean by transcluded. --LasseFolkersen (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAC page for instructions-- the non-tranclusion means that you started the FAC on the article talk page, but failed to list here at WP:FAC (which I subsequently did). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape search - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are just too many gross errors, e.g., "Finding odds ratios that are significantly different from 1 is the objective of the GWA study because this shows that a SNP is associated with disease". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now; it is most strange that the Reviews (secondary sources compliant with WP:MEDRS) are listed separately but never cited, while most of the sources used appear to be primary studies. Unless mostly secondary sources are used, what we have here could amount to synthesis, a newly published work rather than an encyclopedic recounting of what secondary sources say (overreliance on primary sources). Had this been run by WT:MED, that would have been picked up. I'm sure the primary author can eventually correct the sourcing here, but I fear this nomination is premature. If the nominator can show that sources were used correctly, I'll be happy to revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1a, 1b, 1c, 2c. The article should be checked thoroughly for prose and MoS issues. A small sampling:

"Largely this type of criticism can and is overcome in more modern publications."
"There are small variations in the individual nucleotides of the genomes (SNPs) as well as many larger variations; deletions, insertions and copy number variations." semi-colon doesn't work here
"This approach had proven highly useful towards single gene disorders[8]" missing period
please check usage of "which" throughout; several should be changed to "that" (which typically follows a comma)
hyphens needed in compound words like "well-defined", "high-profile", "follow-up study"
"However, because of this, studies must take account of the geographical and ethnical background of participants, controlling for what is called population stratification." source?
more linking needed; examples: control, cohort, biomarker, complement system, drug development, genotyping
the references need some attention to detail. Consistency is required regarding things like

number of authors given before using et al.
month and year, or just year?
journal article titles: title case or sentence case?
fullstop after author names or not?
fullstops in abbreviated journal titles or not? (e.g., Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet vs. Am. J. Hum. Genet.)?
some web-based resources do not have author/publisher/date even when this information is available on the website

the biggest issue is criteria 1b and 1c. Searching "Genome-wide association study" (with quotes) turns up over 1000 reviews at Pubmed. Is the article really well-researched? Does it really not neglect any major facts or details? Sasata (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.