Talk:Pseudo amino acid composition

Problems

This page seems to be based on primary sources from a very small set of authors, which leads to neutrality problems and original research concerns. It is also unclear how it is notable per wikipedia criteria. Verbal chat 20:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the high percentage of citations from the same set of authors is a concern. While a large number of these publications are from Chinese authors, there appears to be more than one group of authors and each of these groups is affiliated with a different institution. It is not at all clear what if any connections there are between these groups. Nevertheless, this article would be greatly improved if it were put in context (e.g., compare and contrast with alternative methods backed up with citations to review articles).

I am less concerned about notability and original research since there have been a large number of papers published that apply this method in the peer reviewed scientific literature and at least a few of these papers appear to have been written by authors that have no connection with the core set of authors. What is needed is more citations from other groups as well as review article citaitons. Boghog (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph is a bit reference-heavy. I think some of those could be dropped as being redundant, but I suspect that expanding that paragraph into a whole section on the applications of this method would make for a better article and solve many of its problems. I agree with Boghog that this is more of a content issue rather than a neutrality/notability issue. Antony-22 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Google Scholar, the original 2001 Chou paper (PMID 11288174) describing the method has been cited about 289 times after subtracting self citations. Hence the subject matter of this article is clearly notable. Boghog (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Secondary_source#In_science_and_medicine:

A survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary.

Most of the application papers cited in this article start out with a short review of the field to put things in context. Hence these application papers, some of which are not coauthored by KC Chou, can be considered secondary sources and therefore this article does contain reliable sources. Boghog (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am currently doing some work in the field of amino acid composition and as soon as I get something out of it (within 4-6 months) I am planning to improve the area in wikipedia, (before then I cannot do much, sorry). Yes, this article seems to be based solely on a subset of the field, Chou's contribution, but it is a quite disjoined field (vastly overshadowed by Codon usage bias). --Squidonius (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the explanation means, but it sounds something like N-gram statistics. Perhaps some connection would be helpful for understanding both these topics. (Collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.235.51 (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean the main article? This approach in not really a N-gram, there is another approach not present in wikipedia by

Qi, J., B. Wang, et al. (2004). "Whole proteome prokaryote phylogeny without sequence alignment: a K-string composition approach." J Mol Evol 58(1): 1-11.

which is definitely N-gram and makes way more sense (different use though). I am really not too sure about the logic behind Pseudo amino acid composition, but from what I comprehend is kind of like a better version of the values for a hydrophobicity plot (which generally is SMA13 smoothed hydrophobicity indices along the sequence) by taking into account all the differences between amino acids. --Squidonius (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)