Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the month/History

< Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the month

Successful nominations edit

Reproduction (20 July 2005) edit

Nominated July 6; needs 8 votes by August 4 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Toothpaste 6 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 6 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)
  3. Jacoplane 6 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
  4. Deryck C. 7 July 2005 09:58 (UTC)
  5. Joe D (t) 8 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)
  6. Phlebas 11:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Lost out on Wikipedia Collaberations of the Week. Definitely an important topic.
  • Good try. I think reproduction is a very important issue in both society and biology. Deryck C. 7 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

See how it was improved

Rock cycle(27 July 2005) edit

Nominated July 8; needs 6 votes by July 29 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Neum 8 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 22:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Joe D (t) 22:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ZeWrestler 16:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. nixie 00:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The rock cycle is a very core principle in geology, it's so basic that young kids learn it in school, yet there's so many complexities to elaborate on. Neum 8 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
  • This should be lowercase, right? See also Category:Geological processes for some inspiration for what to include in the article. Joe D (t) 22:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this diagram Image:Rock cycle nps.PNG which sould be useful.--nixie 14:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See how it was improved

Alternation of generations (3 August 2005) edit

Nominated August 1; needs 4 votes by August 14 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. --nixie 05:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Eric Forste (Talk) 06:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Zxcvbnm 13:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The alteration of generations is an important concept in biology - and is relevant to a wide range of subjects, including botany, parisitology and mycology - as well as evolution more generally. This short article does an ok job explaining a small portion of the scope of the subject, and could be greatly expanded.--nixie 05:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See how it was improved!

Remote control vehicle (10 August 2005) edit

Nominated August 1; needs 1 votes by August 7 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. --Zxcvbnm 04:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Bathosrex 01:54, 5 August 2005 (EST)
  3. Eric Forste (Talk) 04:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • An important article--Zxcvbnm 04:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical in many advanced areas of the coming mircroelectronic era. A vital part of our exploration of the Earth, our Solar System and beyond--Bathosrex 01:54, 5 August 2005 (EST)

See how it was improved!

Krypton fluoride laser (19 August 2005) edit

Nominated July 22; needs 4 votes by August 5 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Deryck C. 17:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Toothpaste 09:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fenice 19:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Krypton Fluoride laser is used widely in industrial processing, however the article about it is still short and I'm sure there's a lot to write about it. Deryck C. 17:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See how it was improved

RuBisCO (28 August 2005) edit

Nominated August 11; needs 2 votes by August 18 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. nixie 05:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Eric Forste (Talk) 09:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Adenosine | Talk 04:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Klonimus 03:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deryck C. 14:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • It's the most abundant protein on earth and understanding its activity is key to understanding the biochemistry of photosynthesis.--nixie 05:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • article moved to RuBisCO. Deryck C. 05:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be the most important molecule on earth. What would we do without plants? Adenosine | Talk 04:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable protein. Klonimus 03:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See how it was improved

Astronomical algorithm (15 September 5 2005) edit

Nominated July 28; needs 2 votes by August 4 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Eric Forste (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Deryck C. 07:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This article could become an educational resource for people developing great open-source models of the Solar system and other astronomical entities, as well as CCD-image processing. Right now it's not there yet. Let's get it there. --Eric Forste (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impurity (13 September 2005) edit

Nominated September 5.

Impurity is a very basic concept in metallurgy and chemistry, therefore needs a better article. Deryck C. 08:05:22, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Deryck C., as the nominator, see comments above.
  2. Magicmonster 19:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Halbert 01:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Some commentary about limits of precision and the impossibiity of producing anything truly pure would be helpful[reply]

See how it was improved

Science (journal) (29 September 2005) edit

Nominated September 9; needs 2 votes by September 16 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Deryck C. 08:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Anetode 08:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Am I allowed to nominate an article even if I don't think I can help it at all? I just came across Science (journal), and it seems to me that such a prominent journal should have a more detailed article, no? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

See how it was improved

Physical oceanography(11 January 2006) edit

needs 12 votes by January 24 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. — RJH 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Already started work on it (Mis-read, thought it was already in) anyway improvement is long overdue. Vsmith 00:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --nixie 00:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Deryck C. 14:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I support this topic as well. 14 November 2005 (UTC).
  6. Adraeus 22:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I support it too. Iotha 04:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. O. Prytz 10:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sounds like a good idea William M. Connolley 10:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  10. Extends ongoing effort to clean-up & globalize oceanography ... RJBurkhart 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • An important science category with very little coverage. The Oceanography page is only somewhat better. :) — RJH 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neum 04:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support saving this page from merging ^_^ Deryck C. 14:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "needs 2 votes by September 22"? What should this be updated to? Looks as if it hasn't been updated since nomnination... Iotha 04:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think most of these WP collaboration pages are on a monthly basis, rather than for a week. Probably should have the page renamed. ;) — RJH 22:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See how it was improved

Human Genome (27 January 2006) edit

Nominated January 3; needs 6 votes by January 24

Support:

  1. Fenice 13:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 16:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nicholas 16:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bathosrex 14:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. dr.alf 03:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DMurphy 15:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Samsara contrib talk 07:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mike Lin 01:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
This article on one of most important issues in science has great potential and should be of interest to everyone.--Fenice 13:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not my field, but i'll support this. --ZeWrestler Talk 16:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could probably be an AID candidate as well... --DMurphy 15:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article being Science Collaboration of the Week will be a fantastic bit of preparation in the run-up to the Human Genome Project being on Article Improvement Drive! Fully supporting. - Samsara contrib talk 07:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said that you can vote for it here. - Samsara contrib talk 21:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See how it was improved

Nutrition (15 February 2006) edit

Nominated January 2; needs 10 votes by February 6

Support:

  1. Fenice 11:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WS 14:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —James S. 09:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Bic1313 02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Duran 02:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Liisa Mari 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Gflores Talk 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Laura Scudder 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Scorpios 23:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --DanielCD 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • The article on this important topic needs inline citations, a better section on vitamins.--Fenice 11:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There's nothing in the "history" section.

  • This is one of those subjects that EVERYONE thinks they know. There are piles and piles of nutrition pseudoscience, and these things seem to creep into these articles continously. If this does become the colab of the week, just remember it is the type of article that needs consistent monitoring - you could put in a lot of good work that will be undone if you turn your back for too long. ike9898 22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be UPDATED, both this vote page and the article. --DanielCD 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See how it was improved

Natural selection (20 February 2006) edit

Nominated February 3. Needs 12 votes by March 17. (Minimum 2 votes per week).
Support
  1. Barefootmatt 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. some fresh input would really help this page. Pete.Hurd 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The page itself needs work. In addition, we need to merge in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article, which can be found here; it too is way too long, but key elements should be transferred out. Alba 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LexCorp 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deryck C. 16:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Laura Scudder 17:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Samsara contrib talk 20:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ian C. Rose 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Joe Decker 15:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mastermind 13:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FloNight talk 14:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ZeWrestler Talk 18:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Natural selection is a critical concept in evolutionary biology, but its article is not up to snuff. The introduction is far too long and complex, and the article overall could be longer. A few people have put a lot of work into it, but it really needs some more contributors with fresh perspectives. See the talk page for a sense of the current issues. --Barefootmatt 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See how it was improved

Protein purification edit

 8 votes, stays unless more than five candidates

Support:

  1. —Adenosine | Talk 05:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)(can I vote again?) (nominated it).[reply]
  2. I'll help on this one! --JWSchmidt 13:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ike9898 15:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We're past the deadline, but I'm interested anyway. User:Bongotastic Nov 13th 2005
  5. sethmasters Dec 07 2005
  6. Reo On 20:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fenice 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. vossman 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Protein purification can has so many procedures, and mentalities, for instance: columns (eg. Ion-Exchange, Size-Exclusion, Affinity, etc.), Ammonium Sulphate percipitation, degradation & proteases, pI, SDS-PAGE, concentration, UV spectroscopy. It's such an important subject today with transgenic theraputic proteins (ie insulin) being so common in everyday life. This would be a great page to link together so many other biochemistry and molecular biology pages, unfortunatly this page stinks, and the student life doesn't let me commit enough time to it.-- Adenosine | Talk 05:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See how much it improved!

Hydrosphere (6 March 2006) edit

 8 votes, stays unless more than five candidates
Nominated January 11; needs 6 votes by February 1.

Support:

  1. Iotha 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 07:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew kokai 01:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Deryck C. 07:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Laura Scudder 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DanielCD 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. *drew 01:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Zath42 03:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • This is an important "sphere" of the Earth and relates to pretty much all water-related topics. It's a small artile right now and much could be added to it.
  • This is a basic science topic any encyclopedia should have a good article on.--Fenice 07:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason for this not to have a good article.

See how much it improved!

Pheromone (13 March 2006) edit

 5 votes, stays until March 14
Nominated February 21. Needs 6 votes by March 14.
Support
  1. Samsara contrib talk 10:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sayeth 15:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DanielCD 15:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ILovePlankton 22:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ray 20:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

See improvements

Chronospecies (21 March 2006) edit

 5 votes, stays unless more than eight (8) candidates

Support:

  1. Neum 04:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James S. 21:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Magicmonster 00:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Deryck C. 12:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ILovEPlankton 06:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Lots of potential for this little article like examples, causes, and general elaboration. Neum 04:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A great fact to include would be the shortest time over which speciation of a sexual organism is known to have occurred. —James S. 21:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Nebula (1 April 2006) edit

 4 votes, stays unless more than eight (8) candidates
Support
  1. RJH 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Andromeda321 04:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ILovEPlankton 02:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • For one of the most studied features in astronomy, this article is sadly lacking. There are plenty of sources, so it should be a piece of cake. Thanks. :) RJH
    • I agree. I started the article originally when it needed massive cleanup, but there's still a lot of room for improvement. Andromeda321 04:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Andromeda321 contributed most of the article. It was started, however, by 213.78.135.54 in 2003. - Samsara contrib talk 14:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this article has gained a lot of content, I put it up for Peer Review to see if there is anything that might still need doing. — RJH 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonia 24 Apr 2006 edit

12 votes, stays until May 7
Nominated March 26, needs 12 votes by May 7.
Support
  1. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User: Protarion
  4. User: Jim
  5. Timrem 23:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bduke 23:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ike9898 00:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ray 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Scott 10:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. User:King of Hearts 05:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. IronChris | (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. M1ss1ontomars2k4 03:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC): Yay! now there's 12 votes. Also, I voted because it's extremely important.[reply]
Comments


Global dimming (May 11, 2006) edit

8 votes, stays until March 29
Nominated March 15. Needs 4 votes by March 29.
Support
  1. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Deryck C. 02:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - interesting.[reply]
  3.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail)
  4. Zath42 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ModernGeek 03:16, 23 March 2006 (CST)
  6. inhuman14 08:14, 23 March 2006 (EST)
  7. Adenosine | Talk 07:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC) - Nice to get some work towards the global warming debate[reply]
  8. RJH 21:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Seems like an interesting topic that could be greatly expanded; lagging behind global warming by a mile, but is well-referenced and could soon be a Good Article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unaware of the entire subject matter until viewing a documentary concerning this subject. This article is well referenced, and should not be ignored in the Wikipedia community or the scientific community. - inhuman14

Improvements since election Improvements since nomination

Large Hadron Collider (May 28, 2006) edit

9 votes, stays until April 8
Nominated April 1, needs 2 votes by April 8.
Support
  1. þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 05:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Harp 15:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LexCorp 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Ed-it 14:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. JarahE 00:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Keflavich 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Keenan Pepper 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. RJH 21:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. TauNeutrino 16:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It is the most important physics experiments in this decade and the article is far too insufficient. þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 05:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATLAS experiment, one of the LHC detectors, is a featured article that goes into depth on some issues that are common to all LHC experiments. -- SCZenz 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to get tis article going. Considering that the LHC is going to be working in a year or so, we need to get this article up to par. Not to mention that it has several possible exciting purposes, possibly validating SUSY.
  • ... Or killing the standard model Higgs, or showing that Parity is spontaneously broken. So far the article doesn't seem to say much about the possible results. JarahE 00:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See how much it improved

Biopharmaceutical (June 12, 2006) edit

5 votes, stays until March 29
Nominated March 15. Needs 4 votes by March 29.
Support
  1. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Adenosine | Talk 20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ike9898 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Looks interesting and an opportunity for biologists and chemists to work together towards a great article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See how much it improved

Hydrothermal vent (July 4, 2006) edit

(5 votes), stays until April 31, 2006
Nominated April 24, 2006, expired on May 7, 2006.
Support
  1. RJH 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Adenosine | Talk 07:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC) - Lots of potential, so much interesting life around there[reply]
  4. Broom eater 19:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. will 00:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC) - Who wouldn't want to more about a hydrothermal vent?[reply]
Comments
  • A relatively brief article on a notable and interesting science topic. Some have speculated that these may be where Earth life originated. — RJH 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See how much it improved

Hydrogen edit

(7 votes), stays until May 12, 2006

Nominated May 5, 2006, expired on May 12, 2006.
Support
  1. RJH 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Scott 19:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CG 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Adenosine | Talk 07:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC) - All the Hydrogen-Economy hype makes this a prime article[reply]
  6. Denis Kasak 02:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. pschemp | talk 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Helium is already a FA. Perhaps the same can be done for the most abundant element in our universe? :)
    • That discrepancy is probably due to hydrogen chemistry being more complex on the whole (with it being so much more reactive...) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See improvements

Human genome (September 1, 2006) edit

(8 votes), stays until August 7, 2006

Nominated July 17, 2006, needs 6 votes by August 7, 2006.
Support
  1. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NCurse work 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Draicone (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. pschemp | talk 14:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. apers0n 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  6. TedTalk/Contributions 12:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. llamallama (talk
  8. Leevanjackson 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Has been nominated on AID before and failed at 14 votes. Needs all manner of attention: more balanced coverage of topics and significant expansion and reorganisation; more thorough referencing; general cleanup of sections. This is the main point of entry for the articles about individual chromosomes, and links to many articles on genetics, evolution and various genome-related projects. We are talking about the genome which accounts for your being able to sit there reading this, so quite an important topic!

On the bright side, the references that are there are nicely done, and with the lovely image at the top, I've no doubt we can make this an FA with a few weeks' work. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See improvements

Karyotype (October 1, 2006) edit

(7 votes), stays until June 26, 2006

Nominated June 19, 2006, expired on July 3, 2006.
Support
  1. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Adenosine | Talk 08:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC) - Why would this be a stub?! This should have been one of the premier articles on wikipedia[reply]
  3. pschemp | talk 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NCurse work 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. apers0n 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  6. TedTalk/Contributions 12:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ZayZayEM 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

See improvements

Antioxidant (November 1, 2006) edit

Nominated June 13, 2006, expired on June 20, 2006.
Support
  1. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Adenosine | Talk 08:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC) - This is so important. Essential for life, so misunderstood, and the term is thrown around in advertisments daily![reply]
  3. RJH (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. pschemp | talk 17:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Oppose, I guess
  • This is a good article. I have been using it, and have contributed small amounts. I am not, however, sure that this should really be labeled "science". I don't think it is adequately foot noted to say that the facts presented are really grounded in science. M dorothy 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think any article about a chemical or group of chemicals qualifies as science. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See improvements

Gene (December 1, 2006) edit

Nominated October 10.
Support
  1. Opabinia regalis 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NCurse work 05:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ClockworkSoul 04:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WS 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Adenosine | Talk 07:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A former FA that is underreferenced and has a lot of awkward writing, but the material is basically sound and the subject really deserves better. There's been a lot of bio-related articles up lately but this one could really use more eyes, especially from people good at writing at the introductory level.
  • Very important to carve out the scope of gene and genome to avoid duplication of effort. In fact, I think having gene as a sub-article of genome may be a good idea. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really needs alot of love. When this does eventually advance - and I think it will - be sure to post a note over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Announcements. – ClockworkSoul 04:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See improvements

Supernova (January 4, 2007) edit

(7 votes + 1 invalid)

Nominated October 20
Support
  1. RJH (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User J.G.Z. does not exist. IP 216.153.249.214 has made 5 contributions other than this, of which 4 are minor. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. M&NCenarius 04:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tatonzolo 09:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Nick Mks 19:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Garydh 08:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is pretty decent article on a significant topic that just needs some more work to take it up to GA, if not FA status. Several of the sections are well-referenced, but the core "Current models" section is in desperate need of in-line citations. There is also a to-do list on the talk page. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is now fully cited; it's at GA status, and the to-do list has been addressed. I'm not longer sure that a SCotM is necessary, although the article could still use a careful review. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was really good I agree, good links and great pictures for examples. J.G.Z. --216.153.249.214 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very interesting! M&NCenarius 04:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article is already in a good shape, but there is still much work to do!Tatonzolo 09:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very good chance of taking the next step if the SCOTM does a wonderful job on it. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. Shouldn't the vote count be 4 at this moment? And didn't the nomination die already since we're way past Nov 11? Please be kind; I'm just trying to get up to speed! :-) Keesiewonder 21:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • People are allowed to keep voting until the nomination is removed, which only happens when there are more than five active nominations. It's all explained in the instructions at the bottom of the page. To allow them to keep voting is sensible because they will do it anyway. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Up above it says, "If there are more than five articles (5) candidates, nominations must get two votes every seven days to stay alive." Given the low voting rate in here, however, I suspect a month would be more realistic. — RJH (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that just reflects the fact that the project used to be more active when it was weekly. On the other hand, we seem to be achieving more by having them monthly. Material for the talk page, methinks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally I think having a monthly SCotW has been working out fairly well. — RJH (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural selection (February 1, 2007) edit

Nominated November 24.
Support
  1. Opabinia regalis 06:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keesiewonder 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Shyamal 01:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deryck C. 09:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. M&NCenarius 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This was a FAC not too long ago and was a SCOTW last February, and is fairly close to featured standard I think, but it needs some organizational improvements at minimum. I said I'd do some work on it but haven't been able to get around to it, and I think it could benefit from more eyes. Opabinia regalis 06:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll also mention here that another specific request is for more references. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undoubtedly a frequent stop for Wiki Users; would be nice to elevate the article back to FAC status. Keesiewonder 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm, I think I've seen enough biology/medical SCotM for a while, and this once has been through already. I'll pass. — RJH (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever happened to Survival of the Fittest?? --Foundby 23:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So does that mean the article directs for featured status? --Deryck C. 10:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen (March 1, 2007) edit

Nominated November 24.
Support
  1. Opabinia regalis 06:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RJH (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keesiewonder 21:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Deryck C. 09:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. M&NCenarius 00:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The material that's here is reasonable, but it's incomplete and poorly laid out. We did a great job with hydrogen; let's try another element :) Opabinia regalis 06:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could probably use a similar organization as was employed for the Hydrogen page. — RJH (talk)
  • Excellent idea! It is currently quality B but of Top importance. Keesiewonder 21:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds nice as a proposal. --Deryck C. 09:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infrared (April 1, 2007) edit

Nominated January 12.
Support
  1. RJH (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. M&NCenarius 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. - Iotha 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Keesiewonder talk 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seldon1 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This long-suffering article has accumulated a lot of good material, but it still has room for improvement. I'm nominating it here because it crosses multiple science disciplines and it could be an interesting collaboration. (Compare to the ultraviolet article, which is at GA status.) Thanks! — RJH (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lot of potential, would be too hard a job to get to FA...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I disagree. "Hard" is a relative term; with enough work just about any topic can be brought up to FA quality. — RJH (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray crystallography (May 2, 2007) edit

Nominated November 24.
Support
  1. Opabinia regalis 06:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keesiewonder 21:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RJH (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    --Foundby 23:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC) stricken; sock of indefblocked User:Endgame1. Opabinia regalis 06:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bassophile 13:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (maybe a little late... sorry)[reply]
  5. Rmky87 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Okay, just one more. Start-class and looks it, but a technique with such wide-ranging applications that's in such common use deserves more. Opabinia regalis 06:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like another that has passed its deadline, but I'll vote for it just in case. The MCB and/or Physics portals may choose to pick it up too. It only has a start class quality but ranks with a high importance level! Keesiewonder 21:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pretty important topic in several scientific branches. — RJH (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This too, see comments on NMR regarding atoms/molecules.--Foundby 23:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very important but conceptually fairly difficult subject within Biochemistry/Biophysics. It does need more work, So please - dive in and be bold! Bassophile 13:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear magnetic resonance (June 2, 2007) edit

Nominated December 9.
Support
  1. Opabinia regalis 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    --Foundby 23:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC) stricken; sock of indefblocked User:Endgame1. Opabinia regalis 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Questionable verb conjugation struck stricken strucken crossed out ;) Opabinia regalis 07:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keesiewonder 01:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rmky87 23:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NCurse work 06:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC) even though I think it should be "struck" not "stricken" cf. eingeschaltet vs. eingeschalten for those who know German[reply]
  6. M&NCenarius 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Logical companion to crystallography. This is actually in reasonable shape, but it was a failed GA in June. Certainly underreferenced, and the division of material between this article and NMR spectroscopy is not optimal. Opabinia regalis 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you know all the atoms in the molecules can be identified using this? I think so? --Foundby 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnology (July 1, 2007) edit

Nominated 13 April 2007.
Support
  1. tameeria 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Victor D (talk · contribs) 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Laxori666 02:28, 15 April 2007 (EST)
  4. Sanket Borad 03:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ike9898 21:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Let's clean this one up![reply]
  6. M&NCenarius 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 06:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is excessively long (due to copying from Wikibooks?) and appears to be a spam-magnet. It needs cleanup for encyclopedic style, and the to-do list suggests several additional topics to be included. - tameeria 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was selected as Core Topics COTF but little was done except removing some spam links. --Victor D PARLE 20:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article seems to be more important at the moment.--Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 06:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photosynthesis (August 3, 2007) edit

Nominated 13 April 2007.
Support
  1. tameeria 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. M&NCenarius 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Needs clarification and cleanup and a lot more inline references. As a candidate for CD inclusion, this should be at least a GA. - tameeria 17:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good topic for a collaboration and really should be on the vital articles list. (In fact I'd like to see a "Wikipedia:Vital science articles" page.) But it's not an area where I have much familiarity, so I'll just lend my verbal support. — RJH (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biology (September 1, 2007) edit

Nominated 6 July 2007.
Support
  1. Shyamal 01:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Iotha 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Separa 01:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Important article with possibly high visibility since Citizendium has a featured article on the subject. Currently looks unstructured and completely unreferenced. Shyamal 01:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laser (October 1, 2007) edit

Nominated 26 August 2007.
Support
  1. Separa 01:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delta40[talk] 09:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RJH (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Popular meme, essential technology and physics topic. Article bordering on excess size, needs more focused structure and citations. Separa 01:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow (November 2, 2007) edit

Nominated July 5, 2007.
Support
  1. RJH (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neil Dodgson 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Former featured article and rated as a vital article. The page has some good content and beautiful illustrations, but it still needs some TLC to make it back to FA quality. — RJH (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs the addition of references to bring the scientific content up to standard. Needs a collaborative effort on the cultural aspects to ensure that the vital information remains but the esoteric material is expunged. Neil Dodgson 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atom (December 1, 2007) edit

Nominated August 15, 2007.
Support
  1. RJH (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zginder 21:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A vital scientific article that could be significantly improved. — RJH (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted for it when it was a ACID, before it failed from lack of choosing a winner. Zginder 21:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article gets chosen, make sure to unprotect it during the collaboration! Separa (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is only semi-protected. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prion (January 1, 2008) edit

Nominated November 27, 2007, needs 2 votes by December 4, 2007.
Support
  1. Separa (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article needs to be cleaned up and updated with latest evidence, e.g. [1]. Separa (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic pollution (February 11, 2008) edit

Nominated November 27, 2007.
Support
  1. Separa (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article needs serious help. Separa (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surface chemistry (March 2, 2008) edit

Nominated December 10, 2007.
Support
  1. tameeria (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Topic of the 2007 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, but currently merely a redirect to Surface science and only one unreferenced subsection in that article. - tameeria (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon (May 4, 2008 edit

(1 vote), stays until January 30, 2008 edit

Nominated January 23, 2008.
Support
  1. Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It is a vital article that needs a lot of work to make it at least a GA.

Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful nominations edit

Backdraft edit

  • Fire thing. Two paragraphs; could be much more, possibly with examples and, if we're lucky, diagrams. -Litefantastic 23:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Votes:

  1. Litefantastic 23:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Phil | Talk 08:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


Leland H. Hartwell, R. Timothy Hunt, Paul M. Nurse edit

Votes:

  1. User:Sayeth

Comments

  • Shouldn't each article be nominated seperately?--ZayZayEM 02:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Scientific hypothesis edit

Nominated July 6; needs 6 votes by July 27 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Jacoplane 6 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)
  2. Toothpaste 6 July 2005 08:01 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 9 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)
  4. Matthew kokai 11:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ike9898 13:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


Sailfish edit

Nominated January 24; needs 2 votes by January 31

Support

  1. Samsara contrib talk 08:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • The fastest fish in the ocean has an article of no detail beyond the obvious; most of it is a description of its appearance, which is just crying out to be replaced with a good photograph. This should not be difficult to obtain; probably someone has a photo from last summer's fishing trip. What's more, the article is written in poor prose, probably by the very children who deserve a fun and informative article - about the fastest fish in the ocean! - Samsara contrib talk 08:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has a preliminary picture now. - Samsara contrib talk 16:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Animal shell edit

Nominated March 16, needs 2 votes by March 23.
Support
  1. Andromeda321 21:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Currently a few short paragraphs that are not Wikified and are supposed to cover everything from turtle shells to seashells (both topics direct to this article). A lot more can be said in here from formation of shells to classification of various types. Andromeda321 21:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cryo-electron microscopy edit

(1 vote), stays until June 27, 2006
Nominated June 20, 2006, needs 2 votes by June 27, 2006.
Support
  1. vossman 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC) — I was going to do it myself, but thought I'd request anyone else's support[reply]
Comments
  • Cryo-electron microscopy is rapidly developing technique in structural biology. There needs to be a lengthly addition for the major techniques: 2D Crystallography and Single Particle. Also image reconstruction needs to be describe somewhere.

Abyssal zone edit

(2 votes), stays until June 9, 2006
Nominated June 2, 2006, expired on June 9, 2006.
Support
  1. Neum 15:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RJH (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This could use some general elaboration. I was thinking atleast a diagram of its place in the water column and a distinction from Abyssal plain with maybe some pictures of the creatures that inhabit the regions. A template to link all of these ocean region-related topics may be in order. Neum 15:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this page be called the Abyssopelagic zone? Or perhaps the difference needs clarifying? — RJH (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stdio.h edit

(3 votes), stays until March 21 edit

Nominated March 7, expired on March 28.
Support
  1. Deryck C. 12:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC): self-nom.[reply]
  2. Adenosine | Talk 06:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :Can't argue when I've used it![reply]
  3. M1ss1ontomars2k4 03:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC): Can't live program without it.[reply]
Comments

stdio.h is a commonly used library header in C programming language and C++, which does more than half of the console work. It should deserve a deeper research, more than just a list. The blank articles about its member functions should also be filled. --Deryck C. 12:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this more appropriate for a "Computer Science CotW"? But perhaps that's no longer active. :) — RJH 22:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSCOTW doesn't have so much space, so for the computer-related articles I nominated some here and some there. --Deryck C. 03:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular science edit

(3 votes), stays until August 9, 2006 edit

Nominated June 26, needs 4 votes by August 9.
Support
  1. Yvwv 18:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ragesoss 21:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --ZayZayEM 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) ; "go science"[reply]
Comments

Basic topic, short article (about 100 words, not counting the list of names). The article should describe common editions of popular science media (Discovery Channel, Scientific American etc), criteria of good and bad popular science, and the differences of its condition in different faculties.

This topic is extremely broad, and has significance beyond just popularization, since "popular science" can and does influence professional science at times. I don't think "criteria of good and bad popular science" is appropriate, but there is a lot that could be done.--ragesoss 21:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micelle edit

(1 vote), stays until December 16 edit

Nominated December 9, needs 2 votes by December 16.
Support
  1. Opabinia regalis 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Shrimpy little article with no references. The content that's there is fine, but it's at a very general level. Opabinia regalis 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radical (chemistry) edit

(1 vote), stays until December 16 edit

Nominated December 9, needs 2 votes by December 16.
Support
  1. Opabinia regalis 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Another one that's in an okay-but-unreferenced state. There's also some particularly bad writing in this one that needs cleanup, and of course it's incomplete. Opabinia regalis 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folding@home edit

(1 vote), stays until December 30 edit

Nominated December 23, needs 2 votes by December 30.
Support
  1. Foundby 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Pursuant the FAC failure, I have gone through the article & expanded it. Now all it needs is some Wikifying so it looks like a FA Candidate. But I am exhausted. Please Semi-Protect Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the month newly registered users Can not vote--Foundby 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation biology edit

(1 vote), stays until [Sept 13, 2009] edit

Nominated September 7, 2009, needs 2 votes by [Sept 13, 2009].
Support
  1. Thompsma (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • [Conservation biology is a central theme and a highly important topic in context of the extinction crisis that is taking place. This article has received much attention in the past year, but it needs editing, reviewing, and a bit of clean-up. It would be great to direct some traffic toward this article.] Thompsma (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Science_collaboration_of_the_month/History&oldid=1093543018"