Talk:RNA journal submits articles to Wikipedia

OR notes

Article looks good but we need the notes on the OR that was used before I can publish. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Yes I mainly used the sources mentioned at the bottom, the articles in RNA Biology, Nature and Science. The author guidelines are available on their website.

I asked w:User:Proteins for a reaction via e-mail and got the following response:

With their novel publication policy, Dr. Bateman and his colleagues show an admirable commitment to opening scientific research to the public. I applaud their efforts, which I believe will be effective. We scientists often wish to have better methods for outreach, better communications with the public that funds most of our research. But our efforts are too often uncoordinated and do not support each other; we end up "re-inventing the wheel". Dr. Bateman and colleagues have made a clear advance towards the goal of public outreach. Their approach has the advantages that it (1) integrates the efforts of disparate labs by centralizing public outreach in the widely read Wikipedia, and (2) invites students and general readers to work with researchers to make the science articles accurate AND comprehensible to lay-people. Also, the presence of an active WikiProject for Molecular and Cellular Biology, with its track record of high-quality articles, suggests to me that this RNA initiative will thrive within the Wikipedia community.

I'll forward the e-mail to any admin/reporter requesting it and have already sent it to User:PatrickFlaherty.

cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Review

Revision 742719 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: No backup for "A Wikipedia entry ... improve the record." . Also the last source (sciencemag.org) is by paid subscription only, needs to be removed as no one can use it. No verification for "promising method ... likely to be effective", any email used as a source should be forwarded it to scoop@wikinewsie.org . NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: "Nature website, XX called the new" - Inserting the XX's as I assume someones name is missing there. Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 742719 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: No backup for "A Wikipedia entry ... improve the record." . Also the last source (sciencemag.org) is by paid subscription only, needs to be removed as no one can use it. No verification for "promising method ... likely to be effective", any email used as a source should be forwarded it to scoop@wikinewsie.org . NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: "Nature website, XX called the new" - Inserting the XX's as I assume someones name is missing there. Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Some clarifications:

• The quote "A Wikipedia entry ... improve the record." is backed up by the reference "Paul P. Gardner and Alex G. Bateman "A home for RNA families at RNA Biology". RNA Biology, January 2009 ".
• If the Science source is removed, there will be no backup for the statement "last March, 250 scientists wrote a petition in the magazine Science to ask GenBank to allow community annotation of its DNA sequences, but their request to 'Wikify' GenBank was denied". Nevertheless this fact can be judged correct from its title, even if access is for subscribers only.
• Email has been forwarded to Patrick Flaherty, both me and him are accredited reporters and I am an admin, don't see why this has to further delay publication. Sending to scoop would disclose some details in the mail I'd rather not share with a large group of other editors.
• Missing subject entered.

I think this deals with all concerns. I suggest date bumping due to delayed publishing of this OR story. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Review 2

Revision 742999 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Previous reviewer makes some good points, but these have all been addressed in above comments. Great work overall. --Cirt (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 742999 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Previous reviewer makes some good points, but these have all been addressed in above comments. Great work overall. --Cirt (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Anyone wants to publish this on the Wikinews Reports blog? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)