This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
See also Talk:Arabidopsis_thaliana.
A link to Lolle et al. 2005 was added to the A. thaliana page shortly after the paper was published, and discussion about this citation was premature ensued.
Evidence for notability is that the paper attracted broad initial interest (see NYT piece etc.) and then controversy.
The debate could be seen as a case study on the dangers of pollen contamination and insufficient skepticism about 'hot' results in prestigious journals, and perhaps even on the possibility for groupthink on public review sites like F1000 (an argument for anonymity in peer review).
I commented on the Talk page years later, suggested trimming the discussion. JS Hoyer (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
