Talk:Major urinary proteins/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've signed up for this review. Comments to follow in a day or three. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Very good article, I enjoyed reading it. Are you a scientist by profession? Just a few minor nitpicks below. I'll read it through again in a couple of days to check references, and make sure that any biochem jargon which I understood is adequately explained for the average reader. Sasata (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• who discovered the mups? How about a cite to the original paper(s)?
• "The central Class B Mup gene cluster formed by number of sequential duplications from one of the Class A Mups." missing a word somewhere
• "It is currently unknown if reptiles have Mup genes." Can this be sourced or is it your own observation?
• suggest removing several uses of "recently", and replacing with years

Thank you for the review (and also for the copy edit). Your suggestions are excellent, I'll incorporate them a little later today. Yes, I am a scientist. In fact my colleagues and I and been looking at these proteins for a while and we have found a cool new function for them. I'll have to wait until that is published before I can add it to the article, of course, but I hope once that happens the it should be comprehensive enough to try for FA status. Rockpocket 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have (hopefully) addressed your helpful suggestions. Your question about who discovered Mups directed me to some very old, and quite fascinating, literature. From that I learned a remarkable bit of trivia: Mups were first discovered by Gavin Newsom's great-grandfather! Rockpocket 08:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm happy to promote this article to GA status, and look forward to its appearance at FAC. Please write more biochem articles! Sasata (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Very well written, complies with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Article is richly cited, and all are to reliable sources. A spot check of several citations turned up nothing amiss.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thoroughly covers the topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have appropriate free-use licenses or are PD.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: