Talk:Gene expression

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon bioDNA.svg

This Biology related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


It's good[edit]

This seems like a phenomenally good article. But if you showed me the ingredients list of an Abba-Zabba, I'd probably think it was good article too. This stuff's way above my puny head. So my question is - is this such a good article that we don't really need it, i.e. is it really RW? DogP 17:10, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

As I have an extreme bias towards Science, I am inclined to say that we do need it. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 17:12, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

"I'm a great fan of science", to coin a phrase, but I have to wonder if it's really RW too. After all, we aren't an encyclopedia, are we? --Kels 17:16, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm a Natural Scientist, but I Gene Expressions are beyond me. But my point remains - I'm not even slightly denying this is a superb article (though I wouldn't know), but if it isn't as good as another web internet resource (likely, no matter how good it is), is it really worth having here? Basically, if the WP article is better, I think we should just delete it. DogP 17:22, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

What's really bizarre is that it seems to be a better article on the subject than WP! DogP 17:26, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I vote we replace the article on WP with ours. I'm sure they'd appreciate the help. Nods.gif --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:07, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
I second. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 18:09, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, it's a great article, and why would we not want a few of them? However, I am slightly curious as the source - was this someone's undergrad paper they wrote or did they put it together just for us? Are the images original to the uploader or sourced from somewhere (with permission or PD)? Not to nitpick. Nice article, I fixed up the intro paragraph which was not up to the standards of the rest, & I'm gonna tag it best of science, if no one else did yet. humanUser talk:Human 19:08, 15 November 2007 (EST)


In my latest fly-by I was about to slap a cover nom on this, but upon reading teh raised eyebrows above, I did some super-duper investigation (Google) and discovered at least a large portion of the article is nearly word-for-word copied from the sections of this neat-o Flash toy. I don't know what that site's copyright status is, or who is responsible for it, because the rest of the pages I could get to are in Chinese. It looks like some university site though. Does RW have permission to host this stuff?--Bayes 01:38, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

I'd say it's ours. Check the history - TimS started it, and many of us chimed in. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:41, 24 April 2009 (EDT)