272:
looked through the journal articles and checked for plagiarism from those sources and did not find anything. However, Sargent et al. does not actually explain how homologous recombination works. I would recommend citing one of the standard genetics textbooks for that information and/or
Kuzminov. As I'm one of the OAs for this course, I obviously can't approve it for DYK once these issues are resolved so this article still needs an independent review, preferably by someone who can check those book sources. If that reviewer doesn't have access to the textbooks, I can order copies of the books and send copies of the journal articles if that would be helpful.
283:
345:
328:). The citations I have checked seem to be OK for plagiarism/paraphrasing, but I do not have the capability to check all of them (ideally somebody with access to plagiarism check software like Turnitin should do that). Given that it is unlikely that anybody will volunteer to do so manually (as this would be almost as much work as writing the article in the first place), I would
271:
is too. A more detailed explanation of what happens as homologs come apart would be useful. Obviously this doesn't need an explanation as detailed as in the cell cycle articles or the articles on individual proteins, but you should give a solid picture of what occurs as homologs separate. I have
240:
identifier), meaning it will take some time to assure that this article is properly sourced, and there is a good deal of uncited text. I am not in favor of passing a DYK without verifying that the article is sourced correctly, and since this topic is well over my head, I will ask at
245:
that others look in. In the meantime, it would help if the nominator would add PMIDs on journal sources, as that makes it easier to check primary vs secondary sourcing. I only stopped by to check MEDRS compliance, and will leave the rest of the DYK review to DYK reviewers.
310:
securin -- I don't believe the article implies that cohesins are the only protein involved in homologous chromosome cohesion. While it may not be complete in its treatment of the topic, it is not factually inaccurate, and completeness is far from necessary for
348:
Actually, based on some other reviewers' policies on other articles, I'm willing to assume good faith on the offline references, and call this ready. Everything else checks out. I would propose some minor tweaks to the
104:
317:
Sargent et al -- in the current version, this reference is only used for facts about double stranded break repair, which it does explicitly support, and not homologous recombination, so I will take this as
323:
In short, I believe the factual content of the article is OK, the hook is well sourced, and the size is OK. However, I do not have access to all of the textbooks (although one of the main references is
263:
I don't have these specific textbooks on hand but I do have journal access. There is one minor error that I found science-wise: "cohesions" are not released as the homologs pull apart,
304:
I'll first comment that I don't think all of
Keilana's concerns are necessary for a DYK article -- some of these are more on the level of GA/FA review. So, to break things down:
402:
236:
for medical text. The good news is that the hook is sourced to a secondary review, compliant with MEDRS. The bad news is that most of the sources do not include a PMID (
314:"solid picture of what occurs as homologs separate" -- again, this would be a valid comment for the article to reach GA status, but is not necessary for DYK.
99:
36:
17:
74:
44:
154:
40:
94:
256:
124:
359:
330:
suggest that we either take a chance on there being close paraphrasing or remove this from the DYK queue
291:
171:
129:
286:
Full review needed. Reviewer should also make sure the issues raised by
Keilana have been addressed.
209:
66:
242:
217:
193:
307:"cohesions"/cohesin -- this seems like a typo on the part of the author, which I have corrected.
29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
381:
337:
247:
201:
114:
287:
233:
282:
205:
61:
396:
213:
189:
109:
377:
333:
273:
197:
267:
are. And to be super technical, the cohesin ring isn't the only thing involved -
226:
344:
325:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
364:
134:
268:
264:
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
368:
237:
175:
don't separate correctly it can lead to fertility problems?
229:
159:
119:
8:
49:No further edits should be made to this page
232:I stopped by to check for compliance with
82:
403:Passed DYK nominations from November 2013
363:don't separate correctly it can lead to
85:
7:
276:| 23:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
24:
220:) at 23:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
18:Template:Did you know nominations
343:
340:) 23:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
326:available online for search only
281:
384:) 01:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
259:) 19:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
234:Knowledge's sourcing guidelines
32:Please do not modify this page.
294:) 19:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
1:
79:19:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
419:
225:Per the list provided by
130:Find sources (notability)
105:Earwig's Copyvio Detector
41:the article's talk page
360:homologous chromosomes
172:homologous chromosomes
212:). Nominated by
146:Homologous chromosome
120:A Simple Word Counter
100:Reviewer instructions
125:Reviewers' template
221:
143:
142:
410:
347:
285:
253:
187:
83:
77:
73:
69:
64:
56:The result was:
34:
418:
417:
413:
412:
411:
409:
408:
407:
393:
392:
391:
298:
251:
188:5x expanded by
166:
164:
160:Article history
148:
139:
115:Character count
80:
75:
71:
67:
62:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
416:
414:
406:
405:
395:
394:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
373:
372:
357:... that when
351:
350:
321:
320:
319:
315:
312:
308:
296:
295:
278:
277:
185:
184:
183:
182:
177:
176:
169:... that when
163:
162:
157:
155:Back to T:TDYK
151:
149:
147:
144:
141:
140:
138:
137:
132:
127:
122:
117:
112:
107:
102:
97:
91:
88:
87:
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
415:
404:
401:
400:
398:
383:
379:
375:
374:
370:
367:problems and
366:
362:
361:
356:
353:
352:
346:
342:
341:
339:
335:
331:
327:
322:
316:
313:
309:
306:
305:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
293:
289:
284:
280:
279:
275:
270:
266:
262:
261:
260:
258:
254:
250:
244:
239:
235:
231:
228:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
181:
180:
179:
178:
174:
173:
168:
167:
161:
158:
156:
153:
152:
145:
136:
133:
131:
128:
126:
123:
121:
118:
116:
113:
111:
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
96:
93:
92:
90:
89:
84:
81:
78:
70:
65:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
358:
354:
329:
297:
248:
224:
186:
170:
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
288:BlueMoonset
227:User:Allen3
135:Hook length
86:DYK toolbox
318:addressed.
365:fertility
206:Stack0711
110:QPQ check
95:DYK check
397:Category
265:cohesins
214:Josemags
190:Josemags
58:promoted
274:Keilana
269:securin
252:Georgia
198:Quigend
378:Kieran
369:cancer
334:Kieran
243:WT:MED
238:PubMed
355:ALT1:
349:hook:
249:Sandy
230:here,
16:<
382:talk
338:talk
311:DYK.
292:talk
257:Talk
218:talk
210:talk
202:talk
194:talk
332:. -
204:),
196:),
76:007
63:Mat
60:by
43:or
399::
222:.
150:(
68:ty
39:,
380:(
376:-
371:?
336:(
290:(
255:(
216:(
208:(
200:(
192:(
165:)
72:.
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.