Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cyclol/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: WillowW, Rjwilmsi, WP Cell bio, WP History of Science, WP Chem, talk page notification 2021-03-11
Review section
editThis 2006 FA was noticed as having considerable uncited text a year ago, and there has been no progress. If someone engages, other deficiences can be listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone though the paragraphs that previously completely lacked refs. They mostly were supportable with reuse of refs already cited in the page, so I've favoured that for the most part.
- The actual content and images are up to standard in my opinion. I'm not a big fan of figure numbering in Wikipedia articles, since in makes addition and removal of images more fiddly. However this article is stable enough that it doesn't make a huge difference so I've not removed them.
- There's a few relevant recent papers that might be worth integrating.
- Alkorta, Ibon; Sánchez-Sanz, Goar; Trujillo, Cristina; Azofra, Luis Miguel; Elguero, José (2012-06-01). "A theoretical reappraisal of the cyclol hypothesis". Structural Chemistry. 23 (3): 873–877. doi:10.1007/s11224-012-9947-8. ISSN 1572-9001.
- Mendoza‐Sanchez, Rodrigo; Corless, Victoria B.; Nguyen, Q. Nhu N.; Bergeron‐Brlek, Milan; Frost, John; Adachi, Shinya; Tantillo, Dean J.; Yudin, Andrei K. (2017-08-31). "Cyclols Revisited: Facile Synthesis of Medium‐Sized Cyclic Peptides". Chemistry – A European Journal. 23 (54): 13319–13322. doi:10.1002/chem.201703616. ISSN 0947-6539. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS:CAPTIONS "should be succinct"; the image captions are uncited paragraphs.
- MOS:BOLDing used inappropriately in text.
- WP:LEAD is not an accessible summary of the article, and is overly detailed; needs to be rewritten.
- There are a whopping 22 uses of the word however. See Overuse of however and User:John/however.
- Overuse of also should be reviewed: see User:Tony1/How to improve your writing
- The lead refers to figures which are found much later, in the body of the article. (???)
- Page numbers are missing on books.
- The "Illustration of the Scientific Method" appears to contain original research (page numbers and quotes needed to determine if WP:SYNTH is present).
- Statements that require independent sourcing are cited to Wrinch.
- Editorializing, sample: "In her initial article, Wrinch stated clearly stated" (there is more).
- "cyclol reaction itself" was verified, but cyclol reaction is a redlink (as is cyclol fabric); if this is the correct article for discussing those, there should at least be redirects. Naming in general: renaming to cyclol hypothesis, and creation of cyclol reaction, should be discussed. And the implausibility of the hypothesis should be mentioned in the first few lines of the lead. MOS:OVERLINK review as well ... beauty ?
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Disappointing topic. From my admittedly superficial reading (I am not expert on this field), this article pitches a largely discredited/ignored/niche set of papers as something significant, which it does not seem to be. Take the example of J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1941, 63, 2, 330–333. The article has been cited a grand total of 4x. Or "The Cyclol Hypothesis" by Wrinch, Dorothy in Nature, Volume 145, Issue 3678, pp. 669-670 (1940), which has been cited 3x. And "Nature of the Linkages in Proteins" D. M. Wrinch, Nature 139, 718 (1937). Cited 1x. The article also is sort of case study about the scientific method, I guess in a sort of harmless way. One might say that the article is a case study in WP:UNDUE. Lots of famous people and papers cited (Bragg, Pauling, Einstein, ...), but those citations seem contrived and seem to be intended to add weight to a fluffy report. If one wants to discuss Xray crystallography, bonding, or quantum theory, modern sources should be cited IMHO. But no modern source would cite the cyclol hypothesis, because it didnt work out ("dustbin of history") just like most early work when scientists are muddling around, trying to figure things out. Apologies for my directness, which is intended to help. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That confirms my impression; it also struck me that a lot of the content fits better at Dorothy Maud Wrinch, and that some sections are original research (like Scientific Method, relying on sources that don't even mention the hypothesis). And that one has to read too far in to realize it's in the dustbin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd disagree with this. I think that discredited theories warrant inclusion from a history-of-science perspective, especially since this page is clear that it's an obsolete model. I remember this topic being noted in my biochemistry undergrad as an example of the early wild west of biochem along with things like the pauling DNA triplex and the ox phos wars (both of which I would like to see have wp pages eventually). Indeed Category:Obsolete_scientific_theories is surprisingly slim. I agree with the 'Cyclol hypothesis' or 'Cyclol model of protein structure' or similar would be a better page name. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That confirms my impression; it also struck me that a lot of the content fits better at Dorothy Maud Wrinch, and that some sections are original research (like Scientific Method, relying on sources that don't even mention the hypothesis). And that one has to read too far in to realize it's in the dustbin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Disappointing topic. From my admittedly superficial reading (I am not expert on this field), this article pitches a largely discredited/ignored/niche set of papers as something significant, which it does not seem to be. Take the example of J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1941, 63, 2, 330–333. The article has been cited a grand total of 4x. Or "The Cyclol Hypothesis" by Wrinch, Dorothy in Nature, Volume 145, Issue 3678, pp. 669-670 (1940), which has been cited 3x. And "Nature of the Linkages in Proteins" D. M. Wrinch, Nature 139, 718 (1937). Cited 1x. The article also is sort of case study about the scientific method, I guess in a sort of harmless way. One might say that the article is a case study in WP:UNDUE. Lots of famous people and papers cited (Bragg, Pauling, Einstein, ...), but those citations seem contrived and seem to be intended to add weight to a fluffy report. If one wants to discuss Xray crystallography, bonding, or quantum theory, modern sources should be cited IMHO. But no modern source would cite the cyclol hypothesis, because it didnt work out ("dustbin of history") just like most early work when scientists are muddling around, trying to figure things out. Apologies for my directness, which is intended to help. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC would need a lot of work to be salvaged (t · c) buidhe 15:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARCeven if someone were to engage, I am unsure this is salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]Move to FARC, accelerated processper Sandy. Hog Farm Talk 18:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be Improved But of course I would say that, since I wrote it fifteen years ago, my second and admittedly imperfect Featured Article. But after reading these reviews, I expected the article to far worse that it actually is. Yes, the article has flaws, but they are IMO readily remedied, such as trimming the lead and captions and mentioning that the theory is discredited in the lead. Yes, it is an article about a discredited scientific theory, but that alone shouldn't disqualify it from Wikipedia; consider other "dustbin-of-history" examples on Wikipedia, such as the Steady-state model (physics), Lamarckism (biology) or Phlogiston theory (chemistry). Since the article is concerned with the history of the theory, it seems relevant to cite the contemporary literature, although modern articles (such as those cited above in this review) relevant to the theory should also be cited. The suggestion to add modern-day literature on crystallography and quantum mechanics seems anachronistic, since the article is concerned with the methods and ideas of protein structure almost a century ago. I would ask the reviewers to take the time to read the article carefully and to list other objective, well-defined shortcomings of the article besides those given above. I for my part will try to amend them. Willow (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A re-read and a few patches is not going to convince me this is or can be close to featured material, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for the case. Some of it seems like material for Wrinch's bio, and the scope and name of the article are also problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm open to changing the name of the article; what about Cyclol model of protein structure? The redirects to cyclol reaction, etc. also seem like good suggestions. And I have no objections to improving the writing, e.g., the overuse of "however" and "also". The figure captions can also be shortened. Some captions are long only to help the reader to understand what is being depicted.
- The scope of the article is to describe this discredited scientific theory, which was the first three-dimensional model of protein structure, as well as its development and demise. Although others may disagree, I would argue that the histories of discredited theories (such as the three others mentioned above) deserve a place on Wikipedia and should not be barred a priori from becoming Featured Articles. Thought experiment: Would we strip Island of stability of its FA status, if it were definitively refuted?
- Whether this article deserves to be a Featured Article is not within my power to decide. What is within my power is to improve the article in response to well-defined and actionable criticisms, which I politely request. Willow (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My objection is not because it's a discredited theory; it's how the article is put together. I suggest a sustained amount of work would be needed to address all of the issues. There's the lists of issues on the page already (just an overview, on closer examination, more is typically found), and there seems to be WP:SYNTH in the "Illustration of the scientific method" section at least. Standards at FAC have changed considerably since this article was featured; page numbers and most recent scholarly sources are expected, and the two new sources listed above would need to be incorporated, as well as solving the naming and writing issues. I would not want to see this FAR stalled on the page unless there is truly a commitment from numerous editors to doing this work; it is quite a bit for one editor. Willow, you've been absent from Wikipedia for quite some time, and I'm unaware if you know how much standards have changed since 2006 to 2008?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there are far fewer editors to collaborate on articles these days. Let's suppose the Gods smiled upon Wikipedia and the one-and-only Tim Vickers returned to active editing: where do you think his efforts are most needed and would be best utilized? We need him on at about eight very highly viewed FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I will do what I can and if Tim and others can contribute, then I will be only too delighted. Of course the cyclol model is not the most pressing issue on Wikipedia. If you want to end this FAR in the interests of time and because the task seems too great for one editor, then I accept your assessment with good grace.
- Nonetheless I ask a boon. According to my understanding, an FAR may last 3 weeks, especially if the article is being worked on actively, as we see on the current WP:FAR. I request that editors be given until the 31st of March to improve the Cyclol article before sending it to FARC. Willow (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- FARs can last as articles are improving; that is not a problem. But because you have been long (mostly) absent, I just wanted to be sure you were aware of how much has changed in the standards of featured articles, but more significantly, that the kinds of collaborations that used to routinely happen in bringing and keeping articles at featured standard are now extremely rare on Wikipedia. There are fewer editors, and fewer FA-knowledgeable editors who have the time to help when a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed. That is, I wanted to be sure you understood the likelihood that you would have to a) do the bulk of the rewrite yourself, while b) perhaps not knowing that the standards today are much higher than they were when the article was first written. The expectation today is that everything will be cited to the highest quality and most recent scholarly sources; the days when FAs were an editor writing what they knew, and more or less attaching reliable sources to that text, are no more. And I'm not complaining that this article is somehow less important than the others, rather pointing out that very highly viewed and core articles are going without improvements for the very reasons I mention, so that you will go in knowing that getting help from others may not happen. I saw this, sadly, at History of Minnesota; Minnesota last decade had pretty much a featured topic, with almost everything about the state at FA level. That was when many editors collaborated and shared the work; today, the editors who attempt to save a rusty bronze star often find they are going it alone, and become discouraged and give up. Graham Beards and I, with a few others new since your time, have done our best in the biomedical realm, but much of Tim Vickers' work is now at risk. I am also worried that the one editor who can rewrite this article (you) has been fairly disengaged from Wikipedia; do you have the commitment to see this through? Those are things for you to ponder; as to how FAR functions, if you say you are willing to do the work, and productive work is ongoing, FARs are allowed to stay open. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, page numbers are now more typically expected on long journal articles for verification. For example, in the biomedical realm, have a look at the citations at the newer featured articles at Buruli ulcer, complete blood count, dementia with Lewy bodies, and menstrual cycle as well as others reworked by Graham such as introduction to viruses and immune system. Using sfns can be helpful, if you decide to go that way. I'm also concerned about the amount of content cited to Wrinch; some of it needs independent sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to help out Willow on this. She certainly knows the topic better than I do so I'll play the minor role, but a chunk of the issues are stylistic rather than substantive and I've sufficient background in the topic to not introduce errors when editing for style. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 22:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my Move declaration then; please keep the page posted on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to help out Willow on this. She certainly knows the topic better than I do so I'll play the minor role, but a chunk of the issues are stylistic rather than substantive and I've sufficient background in the topic to not introduce errors when editing for style. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 22:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, page numbers are now more typically expected on long journal articles for verification. For example, in the biomedical realm, have a look at the citations at the newer featured articles at Buruli ulcer, complete blood count, dementia with Lewy bodies, and menstrual cycle as well as others reworked by Graham such as introduction to viruses and immune system. Using sfns can be helpful, if you decide to go that way. I'm also concerned about the amount of content cited to Wrinch; some of it needs independent sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- FARs can last as articles are improving; that is not a problem. But because you have been long (mostly) absent, I just wanted to be sure you were aware of how much has changed in the standards of featured articles, but more significantly, that the kinds of collaborations that used to routinely happen in bringing and keeping articles at featured standard are now extremely rare on Wikipedia. There are fewer editors, and fewer FA-knowledgeable editors who have the time to help when a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed. That is, I wanted to be sure you understood the likelihood that you would have to a) do the bulk of the rewrite yourself, while b) perhaps not knowing that the standards today are much higher than they were when the article was first written. The expectation today is that everything will be cited to the highest quality and most recent scholarly sources; the days when FAs were an editor writing what they knew, and more or less attaching reliable sources to that text, are no more. And I'm not complaining that this article is somehow less important than the others, rather pointing out that very highly viewed and core articles are going without improvements for the very reasons I mention, so that you will go in knowing that getting help from others may not happen. I saw this, sadly, at History of Minnesota; Minnesota last decade had pretty much a featured topic, with almost everything about the state at FA level. That was when many editors collaborated and shared the work; today, the editors who attempt to save a rusty bronze star often find they are going it alone, and become discouraged and give up. Graham Beards and I, with a few others new since your time, have done our best in the biomedical realm, but much of Tim Vickers' work is now at risk. I am also worried that the one editor who can rewrite this article (you) has been fairly disengaged from Wikipedia; do you have the commitment to see this through? Those are things for you to ponder; as to how FAR functions, if you say you are willing to do the work, and productive work is ongoing, FARs are allowed to stay open. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A re-read and a few patches is not going to convince me this is or can be close to featured material, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for the case. Some of it seems like material for Wrinch's bio, and the scope and name of the article are also problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we can get consensus for a name change and scope of article, and if the article is moved mid-FAR, please ping me to fix this page to the corrected names and moves, etc. No changes are needed in the articlehistory template on talk, as it was designed to withstand article moves (I sometimes see editors moving all the old pages in articlehistory, which is not necessary). My choice would be Cyclol hypothesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, no edits, feedback or apparent progress after 22 March, since our last conversation, are not giving a reassuring feeling about extending the time on this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
edit- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, and discussion of article scope needs to be resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist in its current state (have been lurking during during this FAR, and made a few edits). Too many issue; esp re that the theory has been discredited; the article seems to be in a half way state and doesn't seem to know what it is trying to say / cover. Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - the section with SYNTH issues was removed on March 22, but much of the rest of the issues identified by Sandy remain, and improvements haven't been regularly happening since late March. Hog Farm Talk 13:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - stalled since 22 March, with no edits, progress or updates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist no progress since March 22, uncited statements remain. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.