Talk:Photoinhibition/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

After a quick look, I can see the article shouldn't be disqualified via the "quick-fail criteria". Full review to come. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Review

The article is a well done, encyclopedic article on the topic and meets many of the GA criteria. There are three areas needing improvement:

• Photoinhibition has impact on plant biology and therefore on ecosystems and agricultural production. These further impacts need to be addressed in the article as it is a main aspect of the topic. This review is the first result after the Wikipedia article for a Google search and is a good information source. Interestingly, it is not included in the article--I assume because the primary author is engaged in real life figuring out the biochemical mechanism and concentrated on that in the article. That's OK, of course. It's the beauty of collaboration, each can add their side of a topic and the result is stronger than any one's individual effort.

I added the additional review.--Stone (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's good, though I think the review may ultimately be a reference as I believe there are some major points in that review that should be added to the article. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• The lead should summarize the article, be sort of a mini-article. By going through each section and finding something to add to the lead, a good lead can be created. (that said, there may be a section or two that are too minor to bother mentioning in the lead)

example: The "Molecular mechanisms" section could be summarized in the lead by saying: Several underlying mechanisms have been proposed to explain potoinhibition, but the way(s) by which photoinhibition occurs is debated by scientists."

• The entire article should be as accessible to as many people as possible. Towards that end, instances of jargon should be explained, replaced by simpler terms, or wikilinked, where that can be done without encumbering the prose. There is a fair amount of jargon which I think can be improved on. It is especially important in the lead. The "mini-article" should be such that a student with a basic science understanding should get the gist of what the article says. (this is a good way to allow both technical specialists and general readers to get information from the article, a less technical lead with extensive technical detail in the body of the article)

example: "quantum yield" needs explaining for the non-specialist

I think this is done. Smartse (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good way to handle quantum yield. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are also a few misc. points needing attention:

• The picture of the process is misleading in that it seems to the reader that lincomycin is a part of the natural process.

I've changed the caption but can remove lignomycin altogether if you think it is necessary. Smartse (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think by saying in the caption "can be used in experiments" it would be very clear who is using lignomycin. The lead will eventually need to mention the experiments and the antibiotic, so keeping it in the picture makes good sense. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• (Done) "(see dynamic inhibition)" should be reworded/eliminated as parentheticals like this don't belong in an encyclopedia article.

I think this needs sorting out. This is the ecological definition of photoinhibition whereas the article is (naturally) writteb from a molecular POV

I think dynamic photoinhibition is one or more other biochemical reactions that causes decreased photosynthesis. The parenthetical is cleared up anyway, I don't know about what else should be done at this point.Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• (Done) The articles referenced by the "Several recent reviews on photoinhibition are available" should be in a "Further reading" section if not used to cite some specific information in the article, and the sentence eliminated.

Done Smartse (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, though the article will certainly be passable as a Good Article if the above are corrected, the section titles and organization could use a bit of attention:

• (Done) The title of the "Plants and Cyanobacteria" section could be changed to better describe the section's content; and the "Photoinhibition of Phosystem I" section better fits above "Dynamic photoinhibition" because it isn't a type of dynamic photoinhibition.

Done too. Smartse (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, some of the other section titles are excellent examples of simple direct wording while accurately summarizing the section!

I look forward to passing this article once the required improvements are made. So I've put the article On Hold. Thanks to the main author of the article for creating it and Smartse for taking the time to improve it further. Happy editing! Diderot's dreams (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am using (Done) next to the bullets to indicated that items are fixed to the GA standard. So to easily find items still needing attention, look in the review for bullets without the (Done).

And a note about "breadth". The GA criterion allows missing a few major points but not an entire main aspect. So not every section has to be comprehensive and complete. But let's see what we can add on ecological and physiological effects without searching exaustively.Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

After being informed by the nominator that they are not going to have time to make the needed improvements to the article, I will reluctantly fail the nomination. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)