 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editFrom draft page comments
I'm unclear about the OR aspect of this: if there is an ITASSER run, that run is the OR performed and reported in RS outside WP, , and reporting it here is not OR. Publishing a full methods section etc. is also done outside WP, not here, and we would not usually include it.
If we said the structure is such and such giving just a reference to the run, that might be undue extrapolation, but if we say clearly as we do in this article that what we are saying is based upon a single run, how is that OR?
If there are multiple runs to determine a consensus structure, and we were to construct such a solution here, that we beOR--to give a consensus structure, it would have to be reported as such. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC).
See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology# Draft:RNF227. Worldbruce (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
imilar to other drafts for human genes: the topic is notable, but there's significant WP:Original research included in this draft. Uncontroversial info sourced directly from a database is fine (e.g. the sequence info). However tertiary structure prediction is difficult and requires more than just a single ITASSER run - a full methods section detailing the steps taken, accuracy assessments etc, which emphasises the significance of the WP:OR involved in it. This has come up in other drafts e.g draft:SMIM19. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)