Content deleted Content added
Squidonius (talk | contribs) →Article Rating: some ideas for GA target |
|||
Line 243:
I don't find the section on statistics very helpful. To my eye, it says, yah there are all these problems with multiple hypotheses and normalization. True, but the article should either go into these issues or redirect the reader. There is a raft interesting literature on this topic. We should read it, summarize it and cite it, or avoid highlighting the issue. [[User:Tombadog|Tombadog]] ([[User talk:Tombadog|talk]]) 01:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
: The next mark up is [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|Good article]]. I gave Statistics a bit of a clean (from mystical to list) and I added a section better explaining hybridization in hopefully understandable terms. Possible improvements:
:* Is History too short?
:* Maybe splitting the analysis part, say creating [[DNA microarray statistical analysis]] and expanding that?
:* Is the jargon simple and constant? I think it is. (I am advocating the correct jargon to be used, such as probe, feature/spot, channel, platform and not fixed DNA, dot, colour and machine)
:* Nothing is said about proteomics and ancillary techniques
:* some images don't seem too relevant. Image gallery? --[[User:Squidonius|Squidonius]] ([[User talk:Squidonius|talk]]) 16:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
| |||