The article has a fawning style and vanity-like content: "...Seeman was frustrated with the haphazardness and guesswork ... In fall 1980, while at a campus pub, Seeman was inspired by the M. C. Escher woodcut ...This goal was only achieved in 2009, nearly thirty years later, but along the way..." A fine homage to an individual at an award ceremony but inappropriate for an encyclopedia that aspires to objective writing. Furthermore the referencing is to primary literature vs emphasis on secondary literature, see WP:Secondary For example, if he is so important, it should be easy to find a book or major review that discusses impact of the primary papers. The article also has a penchant to emphasize institutions, which also detracts from its sober objectivity. In some ways, the article diminishes the very object of its intended praise. At least IMHO.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I think it's mainly a matter of tone. The origin story is documented both in primary and secondary sources (e.g. [1]), but I suppose we can cut back on the editorializing a bit. Also, I think that having a paragraph about institutions attended is fairly common for biographies of academics, though perhaps we can cut this back a bit too. Antony-22 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Some of Smokefoot's criticism above holds for portions of the DNA Nanotechnology article's references to Ned Seeman, which contain some of the verbatim phrases cited as "fawning and vanity-like" above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.58.11 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I'm currently in the middle of revising that article, and I had come to the same conclusion. Any suggestions for reliable third-party sources about others' contributions to DNA nanotechnology would be greatly appreciated. Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 16:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
