|DNA nanotechnology is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 14, 2012, and on October 9, 2017.|
|WikiProject Biophysics||(Rated FA-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)|
|This is a nanotechnology selected article, and is periodically featured at the nanotechnology portal. Please edit this article to improve its quality. To suggest changes to the list of selected content, see this talk page. (Rated FA-Class)|
|Daily page views|
Doing the synopsis for the Signpost, I must admit I can't really get past the introduction. Perhaps I lack the context for this, but I must say that an Introduction to DNA nanotechnology article may be a good idea, similar to Introduction to evolution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a question
Dont know if anyone else has questioned this but are stem cells better than trusting viruses .. has viruses are living organisms which CAN mutate in my theology .. I am not well educated and I suffer with mania sometimes ... sorry for the inconvenience this may cause and I do no wish to plagiarize any body elses work ... just my own head popping thoughts xxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Any objections to throwing this article into the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2)? Any cleanup needed? I see no dead links or missing references. - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Use of personal pronoun in the introduction
I noticed the article starts with:
I'm savGdesign and manufacture of artificial nucleic acid structures for technological uses.
That doesn't seem right regarding WP:NPOV but since this is an stared article I'm hesitant to edit. Thoughts?
Needs update and reduction of hype about "potential"
I don't want to disrupt this while it is on the front page but we probably need to review its FA status
The main problems are
- reference updating: Most of this is sourced from the early to mid 2000s; there is no ref on the science later than 2011.
- improving source quality: trimming back of reliance on primary sources and there is at least one instance of churnalism -- this ref -- which no FA in Wikipedia should have)
- reduction of hype: this is clearly written by someone who believes strongly in the potential of this technology, but As far as I know there are no products in the market in any field using DNA nanotechnology... this remains just "potential". This stuff might never be useful for anything more than play (and I mean that in the best sense of the word -- pushing boundaries to see what we can do). For something to become a product it needs to solve an actual problem that people have, and do so robustly, safely, effectively, and at reasonable cost.