Wikipedia:Featured article review/DNA repair

DNA repair

Article is still a Featured article.

One single reference; no inline references. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, inadequately referenced. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inadequately referenced. Skinnyweed 19:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional~~ keep, I like this article and will provide some references and minor reorganization soon. Opabinia regalis 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished; extensively referenced now. That required more of a rewrite than I originally planned but I think it's more focused now. I did raise the question of the references for the pathways on the talk page, but it looks like the original creator/s have moved on. Opabinia regalis 06:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- As the article now features inline citations, the nominator's criticism no longer applies; perhaps (s)he would like to have another look at the article and outline any other specific criticisms. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 14:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rationale for FARC no longer applies.PDXblazers 00:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on the article's talk. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Josen 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination as Opabinia regalis has reworked the article extensively, and it looks like we can turn it around. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove despite recent changes,

The reference system is not set up correctly (number in text do not match with those in the reference list)
The lead is overly technical,
Lots of discussion of telomeres - without explaining what they are
Many parts of the article that discuss primary research still have no references
The language and grammar are really bad in places.

--Peta 02:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on a withdrawn nomination aside, further discussion and specific criticisms are invited on the article's talk page. You are right that the references are unwieldy; I've converted them with refconverter. There is, of course, elaboration on the nature of telomeres on the linked telomere page, but an appositive has also been added with a brief description. Opabinia regalis 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Their seems to be a lot of good work being done. Give it a chance. I will also try and work on some issues next week. --Blacksun 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Peta, can you give examples of what you're talking about? specifically:

do you still find the lead overly technical?
primary research - give examples so that references can be sought
poor language/grammar - pls give examples

--prometheus1 08:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seeing as it appears that there are no more objections, can the "featured article removal" flag be removed from the article?

--prometheus1 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]