Talk:DNA Resequencer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article DNA Resequencer was one of the Arts good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
TV
Stargate Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Stargate, a collaborative effort to improve all Wikipedia articles relating to the Stargate franchise. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments


Contents

[edit] To-do

Just to organize suggestions for improvement in lists. If something is completly done, feel free to strike it out. Or make comments about the suggestions below them. In-depth discussions on them should go elsewhere in this talk page. Armedblowfish 23:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea, however, this article is very near total completion. Tobyk777 00:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe in total completion. Everything can be improved. That said, things that are very good are hard to improve. And anyways, the show is still being made, so the DNA Resequencer may appear in future episodes. And a concise record of things that have already been done may help new editors to be careful in their edits. Armedblowfish 02:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions from Peer Review

* Add date accessed links to URLs. :* Mostly done, but do we need to do this for transcripts, which have more complete bibliographical informations in the episode articles? Armedblowfish 23:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

    • I think the links to the scripts are fine. Tobyk777 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC).

*Comparison to Prior section should be referenced or deleted. **It is refrenced, by sevral sources, in fact, in one of the refs, it states that info on the DNA Resequencer was used in fighting the priors. It's 100% refed Tobyk777 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC) * More non-episode references.

  • There do seem to be more, but there probably could be even more. Armedblowfish 23:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

**I haven't been able to find any, do you know of a place where there are more? Tobyk777 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I just added even more! I doubt there's a ref to it in existence which isn't on here.
  • I was going to look for news, interviews, analyses, and such things. Maybe someone could interview someone (a producer or actor) involved by email or something and get the interview on a relatively respected site like GateWorld? Depending on how willing they are to answer questions from fans. Armedblowfish 02:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Use inline citation.
  • Find information on the contruction of the actual prop.
    • Done Tobyk777 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything on this list is complete. Except for the interview which I can't do. I literaly can't think of anything that can be done to upgrade this article more. If anyone thinks of anything, let me know. Tobyk777 03:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other suggestions

  • A lot of information on the DNA resequencer in Atlantis used by the Ancients to ascend is given in Atlantis Series 3, Episode 14 "Tao of Rodney". Some of this needs to be added to this page
  • Put this to-do list in a more standard format.
    • The to do list format doesn't matter. Tobyk777 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

* More references, if possible. **Every ref that exsists on the device is already there. If you can find some more then great, but every one I could find is there. Tobyk777 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Stargate (film) - Find a transcript, summary, or review. Armedblowfish 23:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
huh? what does this mean? Tobyk777 00:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong article. See Stargate (device). Feel free to blank it after you read this explanation. Armedblowfish 02:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

* Comb through the article for speculative analysis (probably longterm).

    • I have ben doing this, however, many of the specualtions are crucial to the article making sense. I have tried to only include things backed up by other sources. I think that it might get a little speculative in certain places, like the additonal factos section. Tobyk777 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This is done
  • More discussion of DNA Resequencer-like concepts in the real world, if possible.
    • This may be hard, but I think we have enough Tobyk777 03:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This is possible, but I don't know enough about genetics to do it. Help would be aperciated.
  • I don't know much biology, but I could look up viruses and genetic engineering. It will take time. Armedblowfish 02:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Cite 10% myth the first time it is mentioned.
  • More inclusions of "according to the show" type disclaimers throughout the article.
    • Done Tobyk777 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References v. See also

Um, it doesn't reference any sources but only includes internal to the Wiki material. Therefore, shouldn't it be "See Also"? JoshuaZ 04:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It does refrence meterial. The episodes themselves are refrenced. also, i linked to another article on the machine. Someone was kind enough to delete the link. Tobyk777 05:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
References refer to outside wiki material generally. Additionally, I can't find in the omnipedia an entry for the resequencer, so the link doesn't make sense (can you find the resequencer there?). JoshuaZ 15:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It is against Wikipedia policy to cite ourselves. (See WP:Verify). In addition, it seems most of the articles on these episodes that we are self-citing themselves are devoid of external links. Surely, there must be plot summaries or transcripts somewhere on the internet? Armedblowfish 00:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It specifically says this in bold at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_sources_should_be_cited. Armedblowfish 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Trascrpits and summaries are not what's being cited. The episodes themselves are being cited. I am just linking to the wiki summaries of the episodes in case people want to read/see them. It's the episodes that are being cited, the acutal footage. However, I have provided sevral external episode summaries and encyclopedia entries as futher refrences. Most facts are cited by both the episodes and summaries/other articles. Look more closely as the refs. Tobyk777 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article?

This was listed as a good article without going through the nominations process, so I've listed it there. However, it is certain to fail unless the following concerns are addressed:

  • Image:Metamorphosis (Stargate SG-1).jpg contains no article-specific fair-use rational. See WP:Fair use for more details - it needs a specific rationale for each article that it appears in!
  • This article does not meet the conditions at WP:FICT. Some things that would help it:
    • Be written from a point of view outside the perspective of the fictional universe
    • To include details about the process of authorship. Which writers came up with the idea of the DNA Resequencer? Why? What did they base it on? How original is the idea? Is it based on something in real life?
    • What has the influence been outside of Stargate? Have any other show-makers professed to "adapting" the idea for their shows?
  • The quality of references is a little dodgy. It could do with referencing some material outside the episodes it appears. How else can we know about the authorship process?

The GA noms process is a little slow at the moment. You may have about a week to make the necessary changes before somebody else comes over to review this article. Each of these criticisms need to be answered (not just refuted as unnecessary on the talk page, actually dealt with in the article! They are all specific parts of the good article criteria) or it will be a certain failure, unfortunately. However, so long as these concerns are addressed, there is plenty of potential for this article to reach the front page as a featured article - there is no intrinsic reason why it can't! Good luck :)

To help you along, I'll give you 4 really useful links!

  • User:Uncle G/Describe this universe (not the best of the three guides I'm listing, but gives the right philosophy for writing about fiction in WP: Describe this universe! Keep that at the centre of all your writing on this topic and you'll be fine.)
  • Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction (pretty much the official guide on what is required of articles about fiction. Helpful but a bit dry!)
  • User:BrianSmithson/Writing about fiction (Absolutely hilarious and very practical guide! A must-read for anyone writing about fiction on Wikipedia... I guarantee you will find it helpful.)
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spoo (This was the battle that Spoo had to get onto the main page. What rescued it was its references to "reality" rather than the fictional B5 universe, and the fact it had comprehensive and authoritative inline references, again outside the show as it appeared on TV.)

The writers have put a lot of hard work into this article and I want you to know it's appreciated. It might not feel like it because at the moment it falls short of Wikipedia's quality standards for good and featured articles. With a bit more work, however, it can definitely reach them, and then you're more likely to get praise instead of criticism. Have a re-read of Spoo and look for the encyclopedic qualities of the article (not the humour, but the inline references, the discussion of Spoo in the "real world", the discussion of how the creator came up with and adapted the idea, the use of authoritative references beyond what is seen on the TV screen). There is no reason that this article can not reach that standard too. An "official guide" to the series would give you a "paper" reference to cite, for a start. Try to find information about how the writers came up with and developed the idea. Are their similar contraptions in real life, or in other science fiction series? Is it possible to find verifiable evidence of how they are linked? If you can address these concerns, this will be a very fine article indeed! TheGrappler 21:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Major improvement! I am very impressed. Needs a good copyedit (copy the text as it appears when the article is displayed then spell-check it on a word-processor, as a start; also read it aloud to yourself, slowly, and you'll see if the sentence structure is okay). Could still do with some paper sources - are there "official guides" to Stargate? That would help with authorship information - at this stage it's still not clear who wrote the concept into the series. Beware of the dangers of OR (original research), which is greatly frowned upon in Wikipedian circles. Don't analyse things or present a thesis yourself - let other people (i.e. experts!) do it and then quote them. Website sources are a good thing to some extent - they link beyond the show - but just because someone is on the web doesn't make them a reliable source. Have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You need to split between "fan sites" and "official sites", for instance. "Fancruft" is frowned upon, "official" information is highly prized. Whatever you do, don't use an article written in another wiki as a source! You may need to track down some scripts or interviews with the creators, to help support the claim that you are using reliable (authoritative) sources. When you are citing an article don't say "one report says... but another says..." - you need to make it clear who is saying what. Similarly, when you are referencing websites, you make them appear more or less authoritative depending on how you quote them. "Why the notion that there is the potential for psycic powers in your brain is false" isn't as good as saying "The Ten-Percent Myth, Benjamin Radford, snopes.com, last updated 8 February 2000 (URL accessed 13 April 2006)" - writing it that way gives: the actual title used by the author (at the top of the page, if you look), the title is in italics, the author is stated as well as the source website (in this case it has a WP entry so it is a good idea to wikilink it), and the date the information was last updated. Because the website name is given, it gives readers an idea of how much they should trust the source; random websites, blog entries, fansites etc are not going to be as authoritative as snopes.com but in turn snopes.com is not an expert, peer-reviewed science website. As a formatting thing, don't wikilink in section headings - make the wikilink at an appropriate point in the section, if necessary. And you still need to be careful to ensure you are "describing this universe" - if something happens in Series 9, it happens because the writers decided to make it happen so rather than "In Series 9, X appears", use "In series 9, writers introduced X" and, if possible, find verifiable information to suggest why they did (in this case, an article in a fan magazine might be appropriate, or an interview with the creators). Maybe you can find a quote from an actor or producer about how they feel about the plot - if there is an actor who said in an interview that "I think the DNA Resequencer is really cool, I wish it worked in real life!" or "actually the DNA resequencer is a little outlandish and difficult to believe" then you have a "real world" point of reference. A final point - you might need to check scripts for this - is it "DNA resequencer" or "DNA Resequencer"? Get the capitalization right and move it if necessary. Overall, this page has shown a very substantial improvement, well done! TheGrappler 02:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. you still need to get the fair use rationale sorted out for the picture - it's not enough to tag it as fair use, since "fair use" is dependent on context (this obviously wouldn't be fair use in an article about DNA, for instance). You need to explain why, for this particular article, and this particular usage, it meets the conditions in Wikipedia:Fair use.TheGrappler 02:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This picture is fair use becasue it is from the fictional work it is used to describe. It's from the episode Metamorphosis which is one of the key episodes descbied in the article and is cited as a source. I have already asked the uploader of the pic for more information. So far he has not replied. Tobyk777 03:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Thumb|Left|200px<-- can't link to fair use images in talk pages; put a ":" in before image so that it doesn't appear. To do a fair use rationale in the article, use <!--FAIR USE applies because... --> , which creates a hidden comment only visible when editing. "This picture is fair use becasue it is from the fictional work it is used to describe" doesn't serve greatly as a fair use rationale - that would still cover any image from Stargate. Including some critical commentary of the particular picture in the text would be good, as you can explain it is there for the purposes of critical commentary. You should also mention that it is low resolution (actually the pic may be too high resolution, perhaps it should be reuploaded with a smaller resolution? It appears quite small in the actual article) TheGrappler 05:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Even better would be to use the {{Non-free fair use in}} template on the image pages to specify each article the image can be fairly used in, putting the rationale for each there. That'll make things easy for image patrollers. Bryan 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My take on the state of the article

I've just given the article a read-through and have spotted a few issues I consider to be problems. The most minor one is simply a matter of spell checking, the article's got a lot of little spelling errors still scattered about. I'll try to clear those next time I edit. A more significant problem IMO is one of focus. This article is about a fictional machine, but much of it is instead talking about the "mechanics" of Ascension and other psionic-type powers. The section "The Plausibility of the concept of the DNA Resequencer in the real world" doesn't talk about the device at all, for example, it just talks about the 10% myth. The section "Other fictional examples of genetic advancement" is also straying significantly, IMO - the examples provided don't seem to have any particular connection to Stargate's DNA resequencer. If it's meant to be the start of an exhaustive list then this is definitely not the article for it, some sort of genetic modification in fiction article would be more appropriate. Finally, there appears to be a lot of speculation and theorizing that treads in Original Research territory. I'll spend some time tomorrow working on this article to try addressing these issues more specifically. Bryan 06:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about the machine. The reason why the article is largely on Asecension and superpowers is because that is the primary function of the machine. It makes sense to talk about its primary function. This article is not an article on genetic advancment in general. In stargate, the resequencer woked largely by upgrading brain activity, not just genetic manipulation. I agree that the other fictional examples section is pretty bad. Now looking that section vastly strays from the topic. It has nothing to do with anything else. I agree that it should be moved. Where should we move it to?
I have recieved other comments on the speculation. I added logical infrences where I thought they were necisary in the text. Where do you think it's over-speculative? To me, the infrences seem logical. Tobyk777 06:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination

Fits all the categories. I had a more detailed looking explanation but the back button didn't record all my page flipping right and wiped it all out. The only thing I really could think of to suggest is maybe try to find a few more pictures. So im promoting this article. Homestarmy 18:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My comments

I was requested on my talk page to review this article before another FAC nomination. I think this article still has some way to go before becoming a FA. Firstly there is the consideration of making articles grounded in reality that is bound to be raised by some people. More inclusions of "According to the show" or "In this episode it was shown" may be helpful in this respect, as may be some data about the real world devolopment of the idea. There are also some othe rproblems in need of some careful copyediting such as the following part in the lead:

"In several other instances in science fiction, genetic and neural upgrades are administered to enhance an individual's abilities but none to the degree of Stargate.[5] Fiction usually explains their upgrades using the "10% myth"; the saying that humans use 10% of their brains, and if more parts are activated a person will gain superhuman abilities and increased intellect. However, the most widely accepted modern scientific theories - contrary to popular belief - state the 10% myth to be false. This substantially minimizes any chance of using this concept for any practical application. See Human brain for more detail."

Such a discussion about mind enhanicing procedures in fiction in general is irrelevant, particularly in the lead, and these falsifications of the urban legend are not sourced. Loom91 06:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask for a clarification:

Is there a specific part where you think we need more inclusions of "acording to the show"? I have added them throughout this article. Could you please be more specific so I can fix it. Thanks. Tobyk777 23:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What I thought I was doing in that part of the lead was putting the DNA Resequencer in context. I added it because I thought it added real world backround info. Do you think it's completely irrelavant? If you think I should I will delete it. Thanks Tobyk777 23:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Lastly there are 3 refs sorucing the falsification of the urban legened. You said that there were none. Do you feel this is not enough? Tobyk777 23:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • For example, the paras in Additional factors could probably do with some more of these, but Peer Review would be a better place for that, with reviewers more representative of the FA population. And that part about other ficiton is irrelevant, it does not add any background. It is better with a passing mention in the body of the article, not in the lead. And for those urban legend falsifications, all the references are in the section towards the nd of the article and not in the intro where they are first mentioned. Loom91 07:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
In that case, ill reword additional factors, modify the lead, and put more citations in the lead. Tobyk777 00:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Ive reworded additional factors, and put the cites in the lead, however, I still feel that the information about other fiction adds a good and balanced perspective, showing that the the concept, in one form or another doesn't just appear in Stargate. Tobyk777 01:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
While that information about other works of fiction may add some relevant background to the subject, it is by far a very minor aspect of the subject-matter under discussion and does not belong in the lead, which is supposed to be a general overview and summary of importance of the subject. Loom91 08:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

I haven't read the entire article but I question some of what I see as speculation. The first sentence states a "device used by the Ancients to artificially evolve people". Where did we get that? I don't ever remember that in the show and it is not stated in the reference. It is an Ancient device but it is speculation to state that it was used for evolution. It was my understanding that the Ancients were already evolved to the discussed state. I think the section "Advancing and Ascending Humans" is a much more accurate description of the known technology use. Also, the group described in Epiphany were direct descendants of the Ancients and might not be considered "human". Morphh 17:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on the Metamorphosis script, I think I agree with you that this is probably a new synthesis of information. I looked at the script and tweaked accordingly, referencing Metamorphosis. Also, when referencing the script, I pointed out the pieces of the script that support the article, which is probably a good idea both for a) verifying information and b) helping this article be the best it can be so it can hopefully reach FA status someday. Armedblowfish 23:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the extra ref you added, however, there was a slight error in its implemenation. I fixed it. There is alot of analysis/infrence in thhis article, however, they all seem very logical to me and are all conclusions the writers intended the viewers to make, otherwise, the story wouldn't make sense. Nevertheless, each and every infrence is backed up by a source. I don't see the problem. Tobyk777 01:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agreed with Morphh regarding that one sentence, which has now been reworded accordingly. If there are any other problems of this nature, they are probably so subtle that you would have to go through the article with a fine-toothed comb to find them. But if Morphh would like to point any more out, he/she is welcome to. Also, GateWorld has a lot of analyses at the end of its episode summaries, which you may find of use as a citing source. Armedblowfish 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that reference should work for the first two (both superhuman/hok-taur and probably built by ancients). (Read the entire conversation I cited just the beginning quote for. I hope your browser has a search function?) Armedblowfish 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The ref works now, and also now looking, Morph is right about that sentence. There is no analyisis section on gateworld's page for metamorphosis. there is one however for prototype. I'll see if I can add any more info/refs to the article from it. Tobyk777 01:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks great - Good changes! I took a look at the transcript of Epiphany and they do appear to be humans. They did say they were descendants of people that arrived generations ago but that they were following the path of those that came before (Ancients). Morphh 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I have added the additional ref in 4 places, and they further support the analysis. However, for some reason I can't get it to do the a,b,c thing. They appear as seprate refs. could someone please take a look. Tobyk777 04:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Good work. What you need for the a,b,c...etc. thing is this:
<ref name="insertname">Reference</ref> for the first instance of the ref, and
<ref name="insertname"/> for the rest.
- Armedblowfish (Talk|Contribs)

[edit] Review

There is a review of this article and Stargate (device) on my talk page. Please feel free to discuss the suggestions there. --Tango 12:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

I've created redirects for this article with a lowercase R, both with and without the (Stargate) bit. --Tango 12:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedits

I know I'm going to be posting a bunch of questions here as I go through the article. So I figured I would start this section and start posting.

[edit] Intro

I noticed the parenthesis were added back into the intro. It is not normal to have an entire sentence in parenthesis. They should be used as part of a sentence to further describe the meaning (such as this). (I don't believe it to be correct to do something like this.) Such a sentence should stand on its own or be trimmed down and used in parenthesis with the prior sentence. I don't think the two sentences in the intro should have the () around them. They seem to be good sentences without the descriptor bubble. Morphh 01:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I orginaly thought those sentences although very vital, were tangential. That's why I put the (). If you think it should be removed then fine. Tobyk777 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Plausibility of the concept of the DNA Resequencer in the real world

I'm not sure this section should be included in this article. It seems to be cover lightly elsewhere in the article and does not completely address the technology. It sort of jumps to the final product of the DNA Resequencer and the focus on the "10% myth". However, DNA research today is a huge field with much promise in many areas of health. While probably not providing super human powers, it is likely that such technology in the future could cure most disease, boost physical attributes, and increase human intelligence. I propose deleting this section or expanding it. It could probably be its own article (non-Stargate specific). Morphh 01:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading the FA review, I think I see how this section came about. I think we can work to improve this section. Man... those guys were harsh. Hopefully we'll be able to get a better reception this time around. Morphh 03:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Without the section, the people who rejected it the first time will just do it again. That section was added so there would be some real world content. It must stay. I do not have enough backround to improve it. If you do, that would be great.
And yes, the people at FAC were harsher than I have ever seen them on anything. The odd thing I just noticed however, is that the person who voted to delete the article has been blocked at least once. Every time he gets a warning notice he blanks his own talk page. His vote prbably wouldn't count anyways. But not even counting him ,I was amazed at how brutal the people were. Tobyk777 05:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok.. I took a stab at it. The pic may be too much. Thoughts... Morphh 18:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this section should be renamed. "Comparisons with real world DNA manipulation" or something (and slightly rewritten to fit that title). Assessing the plausibility is always going to be OR, unless someone actually writes a book on it. --Tango 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good - renamed Morphh 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I love what you have done. It looks fabulous (Far moer than I could have done). Great Work! However, much of it seems unrefrneced. Could you provide your sources so I can make citations for the section. Thanks. Tobyk777 23:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the refs. I just converted the cites to use the proper templates. I still think we need more refs in that section though. Did you use any more refs than those? There is still a whole paragraph unrefed. Also, We should probably put cites of those same refs every place you used them just like I did with the rest of the article. Tobyk777 01:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I actually just used wikipedia to find all the information, however, the articles that I gathered the data from didn't have much for source material so I've just been searching the internet. Thanks for the format change. I was unfamiliar with that method - so I'll have to start using it now. I'll try to add in some more sources for the other sections. Can you source another wikipedia article? Fun Fun Morphh 01:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's generaly not allowed to source another wikipedia article. Sometimes I'm temted to do that too. I think we have enough soruces for the section. The 3 you added should be enough in addition to the old 3. We just need to make multiple cites for each of those sources. Throughout the article i have put excessive cites each time a fact came from a soruce. It should be easy to to add the ref name tag a few times where you used the soruces. Tobyk777 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind that comment. It looks outstanding now! Tobyk777 03:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refrneces sections

I just noticed that the Referneces section was moved to notes, and the episodes section was moved to refrneces. I don't think this is right. The notes section gives all refrneces, episodes or otherwise. The episodes section was simply meant to give the key episodes for the device. How about "Key episodes" and "Refrences"? Tobyk777 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to follow the outline of Wikipedia:Guide to layout. They tend to use "Notes" for the cite.php source section and use the "Reference" section for books and such. The episodes seemed to be a form of book reference. I think this would be more standardize and uniform, however, I think what you recommend is more descriptive.  :-) Morphh 11:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Every single episode has a citation in the notes section. The notes section is meant to contain all refs. The episodes section simply lists key episodes used and cited. I still think it should be Key episodes and Refrences. Tobyk777 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main problems

This is the contents:

    * 1 Technological uses in the Stargate universe
          o 1.1 Advancing and ascending humans
          o 1.2 Other uses
          o 1.3 Additional factors
    * 2 Stargate plotlines in which the technology appeared
          o 2.1 Nirrti's use
          o 2.2 Anubis's use
    * 3 Comparison with new Stargate concepts
    * 4 Similar genetic advancement in other fiction
    * 5 Comparisons with real world DNA manipulation
    * 6 The making of the DNA Resequencer for Stargate
    * 7 See also
    * 8 Key episodes
    * 9 Refrences
    * 10 External links

"Comparison with new Stargate concepts" and "Similar genetic advancement in other fiction" sound like original research. I think the two sections should be combined into a single "Similar concepts" sections which is significantly smaller. "Comparisons with real world DNA manipulation" is definitely original research and very tangential. It should be renamed to "Plausibility" and be focussed on the topic, and much shorter.

Nonfictional aspects (like the ones I'm suggesting are removed) can be less cumbersomely incorporated into the sections beforehand. That is, it would be more desirable not to have such a defined split between the "fictional" and "nonfictional" halves of the article (it should be more cohesive than that).

Any other problems are copyediting (i.e. spelling, grammar and diction) which I'll fix up a bit now. --Alfakim-- talk 17:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The real word DNA section was just renamed from Plausibility to Comparisons so it wouldn't be so obviously OR. Determining if something is plausible is obviously research, and it hasn't already been done, so it's original. Comparing two things is just presenting information - the reader can interpret it however they like. We need to be careful reducing the real world stuff - it was added at the request of people in the last FAC. --Tango 19:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Aflakim, but for the first time I disagree with almost every point you made. I think there should be a very clear destinction between fact and fiction. Seprate sections make it very clear what is true and what is not. I think the priors section is important, because it tells how there are various other ways to get the abilities in Stargate. That section also explains that SG-1 used the DNA resequencer to make the anti-prior device. The genetic advancement in other fiction section is to show that the concept, althought not resticted to Stargate, is amplified to the ````extreme in stargate. Every section is sourced. There is no apparent orginial reasearch here. Tobyk777 20:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well okay. Sometimes less is more, but excess can always be stripped. I'll copyedit and then leave it up to you if you want to FAC this. --Alfakim-- talk 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale

Aren't fair use rationales meant to be given every time an image is used, rather than just on the image's own page? --Tango 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think so.. in fact this is the first page that I've seen that has them all over the place (makes messy code). Normally, I only see the tag on the image page itself. Morphh 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've found the policy: Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. The rationale should be given on the image page, but given specifically for each article it's used on, and the article should say to go to the image page to get the rationale. --Tango 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Ascended

Question about Ascended and Ascension... should these two words have the first letter capitalized in the article? They don't seem to be the type of word that would suggest capitalization. Think of substitution words for this act... would you capitalize any of them? Seems to me it should be ascended and ascension. Maybe this is being too picky but I thought I would bring it up. I've changed it in the past but it has made its way back. Thoughts Morphh 04:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me, do what you want. I don't think it matters. However, you may have noticed the huge problem with the article now. Aflakim made some upgrades to the text, however in the process he destoyed many of the refs. I tried to restore the article with his text and my refs, but for some reason the refs section is a huge blolb of html and half of the lead section isn't showing. Tobyk777 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be lowercase when used as a verb, and uppercase when used as a noun. ("Daniel ascended to a higher plane of existance.", "80% brain usage is required for ascension.", "The Ascended have access to lots of knowledge.") --Tango 13:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed refs

Ok, I've fixed the refs. It was the same mistake someone made on a stargate page a while back. When you use a reference for the first time, after the reference itself you should put a /ref tag, not a ref/ tag. You should never put the slash at the end of a tag that just says ref. Slashes go at the end if the tag isn't part of a pair, so for references, that's only when you've already defined the reference above. Once I fixed that, two other errors with refs became apparent, so I fixed them too - one was just a typo (forgot the closing quote) and the other looked like a mistake made when trying to fix duplicate refs. It should all be correct now. --Tango 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I had done the same thing at the same time and you submitted before me... funny. Morphh 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clumsy introduction?

I opened up this article and tried to read the introductory paragraphs, and had trouble because the reference links were cluttering them up terribly. I understand that it's important to reference sources, but is it really necessary to link to five episodes when discussing technology built by the Ancients? It really introduces hindering clutter. Chris 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I have written almost this entire article and have done the reffing. This is unsual criticism. I was getting alot of grief from people saying the article was under reffed and needed more cites. So, I took the reffing to the extreme. It's kinda of funny that now I'm getting the opisite criticism. To try and adress this concern, when I have a few hours to spare I will try to move the cites (with more than one) to the end of paragarphs (everywhere that it makes sense). That way it will be easier to read. I also need to edit the lead text a bit more. It's a little wordy, repetitive, and goes into too much detail in some areas. Tobyk777 00:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ATA gene?

While I'm sure the DNA resequencer can give a person the ATA gene, where is it ever stated in the show that this is possible?

Faris b 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's never mentioned. I can't see it mentioned in the article, either, though, so why do you ask? --Tango 11:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It IS mentioned under "Technological uses in the Stargate universe".

In Stargate SG-1, the DNA resequencer has various uses. The devices is shown to scan a subject's physiology using green lasers that allow it to perform a multitude of tasks, both beneficial and harmful.[20] Among other uses, the device was stated or shown to advance people's development, increase their neurological capabilities, improve their health, and provide them with the Ancient Technology Activation gene. One character, Nirrti, also used the device to make people into biological time bombs. The main, and most useful, purpose shown in the Stargate universe has been to advance humans, giving them extraordinary abilities and eventually ascension.

I am thinking to remove that line.

Faris b 18:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, remove the line. If someone can prove my encyclopaedic knowledge of Stargate wrong and provide an episode which says otherwise, it can be put back. --Tango 19:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well, I've removed it.

Faris b 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. While a lot of work has clearly gone into it, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed:

Prose and Manual of Style

  • The first thing that jumps out is the number of citations in the article lead, to the point of making it almost unreadable. Although not forbidden by the MoS, there is no real need to cite the lead at all - as a summary of the article body, all points mentioned in the lead will ideally be cited where they are covered in more detail below. The lead could also be trimmed down substantially without losing its focus (it goes into too much detail on specifics rather than sticking to a general overview of the article).
  • There is some odd/awkward prose here and there in the article - perhaps a light copyedit would be useful? For example, from the lead: "...an ultra-extreme state...", and from Stargate plotlines in which the technology appeared: "However, in a cut scene, the purpose of Khalek was stated, he was to be the first of a new warrior race developed by Anubis to be known as the Mashur, their purpose would have been to ascend and do battle against the ascended Ancients."
  • The article has commendably avoided in-universe prose, but plot summary sections (such as Nirrti's use) should normally be written in the present tense. For example, "[She] somehow obtains a DNA Resequencer and uses it...". See WP:WAF#Contextual presentation for more information.

Factual accuracy

  • The two sections entitled Comparison(s) with... could be problematic here. Unless a reliable source has actually published a comparison of this type, these sections are speculative and come over as original research.

Coverage

  • I'm not convinced that the Similar genetic advancement in other fiction has much relevance to the article (which from its title is exclusively concerned with Stargate). It is also largely a list, which according to the Manual of Style would be better incorporated into the article as prose.

Images

  • More detailed Fair-use rationales are needed for the screenshots used - a template such as {{Non-free use rationale}} might be useful here.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know (I am currently in an improvement drive and part of the Stargate wikiproject), I believe this article has many more issues such as unreliable sources, excessive amounts of non-free images, at places excessive plot and original research through synthesis, not counting the style issues you just mentioned. I don't think this is fixable in just one week, and I would have already suggested this article for a GAR if I didn't have a conflict of interest as a fan of the show. :-S – sgeureka t•c 10:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Added: Now reading closer through your review (oops), I see you already mentioned my concerns. Doesn't make it better for the article, but I am not trying to discourage anyone from cleanup. – sgeureka t•c 10:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, and I'm glad to see we're thinking on the same lines! It sounds like you're not opposed to delisting this article, which to be honest is the most likely outcome of this reassessment... unless all the above issues are addressed within the hold period. I agree with you; it's perhaps unrealistic to expect this to happen, especially given that the GA sweeps are not invited by editors and can land them unexpectedly with a pile of work they didn't ask for. We feel reassessment is important for the credibility of the GA process though, to keep up standards, and I like to err on the side of at least giving editors some warning before delisting their work. I'll let the full hold period run in case someone wants to dive in and fix things, but if you're happy with a GA delist (for now at least), that's fine. All the best, EyeSereneTALK 14:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted

I'm sure it won't come as a surprise that I've delisted this article as a Good Article. Please feel to renominate at WP:GAN when the above issues have been addressed. I've updated the templates etc at the top of the page. All the best, EyeSereneTALK 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)