Wikipedia:Peer review/Barbara McClintock/archive1

Barbara McClintock edit

McClintock was one of the big names of 20th century genetics. Does this article read-through ok for non-scientists? Is there anything that is missing or could be expanded upon?--nixie 01:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of anything is missing yet, but it can definitely use some adjusting for the non-scientists. I'm a scientist (or at least studying to be one) and even I don't understand some of it. I'll try to fit in a review and some comments as soon as possible. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and feel it is very good overall. True, more detail could be provided but it's a well-crafted article. I've read a great deal on McClintock including Nathan Comfort's biography, and added some informtaion on his book and Fox Keller's biography as well as the citation for Comfort's book. Somewhere online I have seen a paper entitled "The Real Point is Control" written by Comfort on McClintock and this paper is very good. I am not sure if it is availible free of charge or my university subscribes to the journal it was in and therefore I was able to call it up. That said, I would love to see this article as a featured article. McClintock deserves it.--Mike 00:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found Comfort's article:

Comfort, NC. "'The real point is control': the reception of Barbara McClintock's controlling elements". J Hist Biol. 1999 Spring;32(1):133-62.--Mike 00:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, I have access to that journal though uni, jugding by the size of it- it should be very useful for expanding or creating a section on how her ideas were recieved. --nixie 00:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to write an article for Wikipedia on Fox Keller: when I do, should I let you know so you can link her mention in your McClintock article?--Mike 04:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I already made a stub for Keller.--nixie 04:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Structure wise has a few short paragraphs and one or two one-sentence paragraphs. And "Early Life" is a little short... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As of 06/03/06, I think the amount of early life detail is fine. Could do with a 'private life' section detailing relationships, marriage(s), children etc or at least a statement if none of these apply.--ChrisJMoor 01:26, March 6, 2006 (UTC)