Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The peer review of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject is a place to request review of any MCB-related articles. The goal of this project feature is to improve articles by asking other editors for suggestions on articles that they might not otherwise contribute to.

The reviews are conducted by fellow editors, usually members of the Molecular and Cellular WikiProject.


Requesting a review[edit]

  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{Wikiproject MCB}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place ===[[Name of nominated article]]=== at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia: WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

Responding to a request[edit]

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ====[[User:Your name|Your name]]====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.


Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{Wikiproject MCB}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.


Gaseous signaling molecules[edit]

Hi all! I'd like to ask for a peer-review and assessment of the article. I will be glad to receive any feedback, comments, suggestions, edits, fact-checking, style and language improvements etc. Roman Bekker (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

DNA sequencing[edit]

I've recently rearranged and added some critical content to this page. Any feedback would be appreciated. Some content was moved to Sanger sequencing so reviewing that page may also be helpful for context. §everal⇒|Times 18:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Trimeric Autotransporter Adhesins (TAA) I would like to see what needs to be done in order to improve the article to a Featured Article standard Kfh123 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


I've overhauled and expanded this article quite a bit with an eye towards GA status. At this stage it's longer than the genomics article, which indicates I might have run on a bit. I'd welcome any feedback. Estevezj (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


Just created the article, would appreciate any and all feedback. -BOP 07:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Glial fibrillary acidic protein[edit]

I recently did a major overhaul of this page, adding a lot of citations and restructuring the sections. -BOP 18:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Muller glia[edit]

I just did a major overhaul of this article, adding many citations and revamping some sections to reflect current research. -BOP 18:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Genetic code[edit]

Its the Collaboration of the Month, I figured now is a good a time as any for a peer review. -BOP 18:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


  • I did a major revamp of this page, adding sections on function and pathogenesis. -BOP 18:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


This article has recently been completely overhauled and needs to be reviewed JohnCAPSIC (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Gene expression[edit]

Hi, this article has been the Collaboration of the Month (COTM) article for a long time. It looks pretty good. However, I would appreciate inputs where it still needs improvement with the aim to make it a GA or FA and also to allow another article to become the new COTM. I hope that I have not missed previous peer reviews. Thanks a lot, --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative splicing[edit]

I've just finished expanding and substantially rewriting the page. I'd like feedback on what remains to be done. Agathman (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

From the scientific reader's perspective, the article currently looks very good. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Lipid bilayer[edit]

I've recently undertaken a complete rewrite of this article including the addition of several original figures and extensive references. I've put it up for GA review and eventually I'd like to take this to FA class, so I'd appreciate any advice for improvement. I've also created a number of subsidiary articles (Lipid bilayer mechanics, lipid bilayer characterization, etc.) that are linked throughout the article. To keep backlog down I'm not going to put those up for peer review right now but I'd love to get feedback/help on those as well. MDougM (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an impressive article. I am wondering what would be needed to promote it from GA to FA status. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Clone (cell biology)[edit]

I'd like the article reviewed to gauge to what degree the articles meets the Wikipedia article. Right now its size is over that of a stub. The concept being dealt with is important one vis-a-vis multicellular organisms and there could be many more examples of clonal expansion. Also, review by some one not related to the field would be really nice to estimate the article's intelligibility.


—KetanPanchaltaLK 04:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Polyclonal response[edit]

This article is already on the general peer review list. But, there were not many responses. It has undergone many changes since then, and moreover, the concepts being dealt with are intrinsically very complex and difficult to understand. So, I wanted to get it peer reviewed here, too.


—KetanPanchaltaLK 05:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has been renamed as Polyclonal B cell response, and received a GA-status on 2008-06-18. Now, I'd like to know what improvements are required to get it promoted to A-class and FA-class?
—KetanPanchaltaLK 10:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

DNA vaccination[edit]

I'd like to get this article to Featured Article status. Any help or peer reviews would be appreciated. I think it fills all the FA requirements except for images and stability - but stability cannot be assessed at present because the article is still new. Biochemza 22:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Waiting to see how it is Demantos 14:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


I'd like to get this article added to the MCB article worklist - I've added the appropriate tags (which should automatically achieve this), however, it does not seem to be included. Further, it would be great to have some feedback on the article in regards to completness, quality etc and also any reccomendations for changes that would be needed to move it towards FA status.


Jcwhizz 06:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


I just found that this article wasn't on our work list yet. It's of a good quality, but I was unsure whether to grade it as a B or an A article according to our article class guidelines. Anybody have any opinions? – ClockworkSoul 16:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I just added some plant-specific information to the article. Plant mitosis includes an additional phase: Preprophase. Should this be a separate paragraph? Right now I've included it at the bottom of the prophase section. - tameeria 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)