Talk:Introduction to genetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] My

My suggestion here is that gene or genetics attempt to do the same as we have done for evolution and has been done for special relativity and general relativity. That is, an Introduction to Genetics article be created in Wikipedia to allow easier access to the material. I would be glad to help. I propose to use the Simple Wikipedia article as a basis, and then we can edit it to be more suitable, just as was done in the case of Introduction to evolution.--Filll 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have checked and realize that with genetics and evolution, there are now 7 articles with introductions using this format. The other 5 are in physics (quantum mechanics, special relativity, entropy, M-theory and general relativity). See .--Filll 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a Wikipedia namespace page for introduction articles (e.g. Wikipedia:Introductory articles, since they are becoming more common. Richard001 04:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
honestly, i think the place for these is the simple english wikipedia. Otherwise, what would that be for, anyway? Waldir 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of Simple English Wikipedia is to make things easy to read for ELA students and such. Not to simplify subjects. For people who don't know English. --Heero Kirashami (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this supposed to be in wikibooks? Yeom0609 23:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Or wikiversity?... :s In any case, i dont think introduction articles should stay here on wikipedia, or we'd have introductions on every topic that already has an article (or so) Waldir 03:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
When this page was made, the genetics article itself wasn't very good. Neither was this one. I've done a lot of work to add stuff to Genetics... in the meantime, this article hasn't improved, sometimes I wonder if guiding readers to this article rather than having them read the main one is actually guiding them towards worse material. My opinion is biased, of course. Madeleine 04:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there is an important distinction between an introductory article here in wikipedia and an article in the simple english wikipedia. There, the aim is to simplify the language ("easy words and shorter sentences", specifically for readers whose first language is not English). Here, it's not a matter of language per se but of making complex ideas accessible. Clearly an introductory article is likely to use simpler language than the main article on the same topic, but that is a by-product rather than a primary aim. I think there is a good case for introductory articles on a number of key topics. There are some good ones in physics, and I like to think that Introduction to evolution isn't too bad either. In that case, the introductory article has been developed, and continues to be minded, managed and improved by a number of interested editors - and I know from various sources that it is being found useful (referred to, for example, in school biology classes). I think the introductory articles idea is a concept which should be expanded, not discarded. Snalwibma 07:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • These intros must be judged on a case-by-base basis, but the important thing is that they are in tune with the main article, so editors of both articles are happy with the situation. The right way to view these "introduction to" articles, I would suggest, is as a type of sub-article. Just as when a history section grows too large there is a need for a "history of" article, topics like quantum mechanics and evolution require extensive introductions. Spawning off a sub-article allows the main article to give more room to interesting technical details. --Merzul 19:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In this specific case, I would say Madeleine is probably right, so perhaps the "For a non-technical introduction to the topic, please see Introduction to genetics" should be removed from the top of genetics article, until this one is in a more presentable form? (One could move the link to the "see also" section.) --Merzul 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Major concepts, such as evolution and genetics have tendency to expand with technical jargon as more and more editors (experts in the field) become involved. It is impossible to reduce them once they become titanic. An Introductory entry (support document) is not unreasonable and in fact has merit. It does not need to be "genetics for dummies"; just a readable introductory version. I agree with Merzul that it should be decided on case-by-case bases. Run a readability test on genetics. You can use the one in MS Word. From that you can get a general idea. Have a few high schooler's read it. If they look at you with a blank stare then maybe you're over the top and an intro article is in order. Clearly, this introduction is in need of improvement. If I remember correctly it was started at the same time as the evolution with hopes that someone would take the time to expand it. Sounds like an excellent project for someone. Take a look at the Introduction to Evolution before you deep-six the idea completely. It has been well received by the editors of Evolution and has effectively ended the ongoing debate over complexity and readability. I hope you choose to improve it. --Random Replicator 02:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A review of the genetics entry ... in my humble opinion .. could greatly benefit from an introductory support document. To say the main entry is complex is an understatement. "While some genetic traits have a discrete pattern of inheritance, there exist many general properties of organisms which have a continuous phenotype. These complex traits are the result of the interaction of many different genes in combination with the environment — while continuous in phenotype, the trait is still discrete at the gene level." Sometimes we lose site of the audience. --Random Replicator 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried really hard to make that content as accessible as possible without turning it into a textbook, defining each technical term as I came to it. You think it could be done better, then rewrite it. Or write this article. Right now, this article sucks, and saying it should be improved isn't making it happen.
Your characterization of Genetics as being overburdened with experts is sadly far from the truth. At this point, the article is almost entirely my own words — that's not because I'm being controlling, there's just no one else involved. Of course the article could use more improvement — for example, the lead material is out of date, overtechnical and needs to be rewritten — but your unconstructive criticism isn't exactly motivating me to keep working on it. The Evolution article is a completely different story, probably because it attracts attention from the ID/Evolution crowd. That's probably why it has a decent introductory article to accompany it. Madeleine 04:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is truly a sad thing, if any single one of you editors, who are working so hard to improve our biology coverage, feel less motivated to continue your excellent contributions to Wikipedia! I'm sure we can work out a solution that will satisfy everyone. --Merzul 09:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It was an empty threat. I care too much about that article to quit. I just wish the criticism were more constructive, since I am trying hard here. Madeleine 03:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, to some degree I was responding to this general perception stated above: "honestly, i think the place for these is the simple english wikipedia. Otherwise, what would that be for, anyway?" in reference to Introduction articles in general. I did not realize the genetics article was a solo act. I do recall the original condition and in fact, it has much improved. If that is a result of your edits then you are to be congratulated. I recommend de-linking the intro to genetics until someone is willing to contribute to its improvements. That does not of course change my perception that the topic could benefit from an Introduction entry, but as you have stated in your own fashion "Put up or shut up" ... due to time constraints I will have to do the latter. Perhaps, if it is not deleted entirely we can chip away at it over the summer when school is over. There is a textbook tone to the evolution intro; perhaps a consequence of my teacher training; but I would like to think it has merit. Although, genetics might be considerably harder to simplify than evolution. Again, my apologies if I came across too critical, the genetics article is indeed vastly improved. Best of luck with your edits. --Random Replicator 03:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually had my own additions take on a textbook tone -- I used bold to emphasize important vocabulary words (see this version)... but the only person who reviewed the article when I submitted it for scientific peer review said it was nonstandard, so I removed it. So it's not like I'm against the style... maybe it's more acceptable in an "intro" article (if intro articles are themselves acceptable). I would be happy to help work on this article with you. FWIW, I know how to make diagrams (see gallery on my userpage), if you want any made for the article. Madeleine 03:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Months after participating in the beginning of this discussion, I came back to see the evolution, and I think the debate has been positive. I should point out a few conclusions:

  • Snalwibma made a good case showing why simple english wikipedia isn't appropriate for these introductory articles. Wikibooks, suggested by Yeom0609, are, as described in their home page, for developing textbooks, which should in principle include the technical jargon, thus going against the principle of simple concepts. I guess at this point I'd support my suggestion to use Wikiversity for this (the link on the top of the Genetics article could stay, pointing there), since it is afterall a project to produce learning materials, or, as Richard001 said, a separate namespace could be ok for this purpose. I really don't feel that this kind of introductions should be kept in the same place as the regular articles.
  • In any case, I do support introduction to complex topics, wherever they end up being hosted.

Waldir 18:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why have introductory articles

Encyclopedia Britannica itself, our gold standard in encyclopediae, has 5 or 6 different levels of articles. I have no problem with extended teaching materials in Wikiversity and wikibooks. However, I think there is a place for shorter more accessible articles here of an introductory nature.

We do not have 5 or 6 levels like EB, but only 3 (Simple Wikipedia, introductory articles and main articles). This is a major goal of Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible and has resulted in several other introductory articles: Category:Introductions has the list.

The more accessible we make our material, the better, as far as I am concerned. The more ways we present of doing this, the better.--Filll 19:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple English Wikipedia

simple:Genetics - It's a good start - perhaps even better than this one - but Punnet squares refuse to appear overnight without my input. *sigh* Adam Cuerden talk 18:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia is not to make everything easy to understand for non-technical Wikipedians. Simple English Wikipedia, as has been stated multiple times on its pages, is for people who don't understand English, not for people who don't understand the technicalities of a subject. Read the purposes, people. --Heero Kirashami (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should this article exist?

I've started a discussion on the Genetics Wikiproject talk: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Genetics#Introduction_to_Genetics considering whether this article should exist (compared to the current Genetics article, which is FA), and asking if anyone has a clear idea on what to do with it. If you're watching this page and are interested in the article, please chime in! Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing question -- where are we going?

You know, I think the entry is getting more complicated and difficult to understand as it goes on. We're repeating the problems of Genetics.

Here's the old version:

Genetics is the study of how living things receive common traits from previous generations. These traits are described by the genetic information carried by a molecule called DNA. The instructions for constructing and operating an organism are contained in the organism's DNA. Every living thing on earth has DNA in its cells.
A gene is a hereditary unit consisting of DNA that occupies a spot on a chromosome and determines a characteristic in an organism.
Genes are passed on from parent to child and are an important part of what determines physical appearance and behavior.
A gene will also determine what traits a whole family (such as the grandfather, great grandfather, etc.), will have, because of the genes passed down in existing chromosomes.

Here's the new version:

Genetics is a field of science that studies inheritance in living things. Living organisms inherit some, but not all, of the features of their ancestors - for example, children may be very similar to others in their family, but are never absolutely identical to their parents. Genetics tries to identify which features are inherited, and work out the details of how these features are passed from generation to generation.

Just read the two versions for a second. Which is easier to read?

You're introducing the term "inheritance" to define "genetics." It's sort of circular, like saying, "Morphine causes sleep because it contains a dormitive principle." The next thing you discuss is the exception -- "some, but not all".

The second sentence is too long. I once wrote a sentence that long for an article, and my editor made me stand there while he read it aloud.

If you're explaining difficult ideas, one way to make it simpler is to use simpler sentences.

One of the problems is that we're under the gun to prove that we can improve the article before it's deleted. I think we should remove the deletion tag to begin with, because from the discussion it looks as if there's no consensus, and it won't be deleted.

Let's stop for a second and think it out. What are the important ideas that we want to convey in this article? What's the simplest way we can convey them?

There's an expression -- "Sometimes you're rowing so hard you don't have time to look at your compass." Let's look at the compass. Where are we going with this?

I hope you don't take this wrong, Tim, because I appreciate your work, but it's actually very difficult to write a simple article. I've been there.

William Butler Yeats said, "Easy reading is hard writing." And Ezra Pound said, "Easy writing is damn hard reading." Nbauman (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"I don't have time to write you a short reply, so I'll write you a long one." I've simplified the start a bit, but the old introduction used terms before it defined them, which didn't work either. My personal plan for this article is for it to protvide a stand-alone introduction for people with no scientific background to how genes are inherited and what they do. Please edit and expand the text, your writing experience would be very valuable. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's imagine the audience. I'll take a real example. Suppose you were writing for a high school student who was one of the few bright students in a poor school, and her overburdened teacher wanted to send her to Wikipedia to get an explanation of genetics that he could't give her in class. Suppose, as science teachers tell me, these kids come from deprived backgrounds and you're doing well if you can just get one important idea across.
What's the most important idea about genetics that you would try to get across? Nbauman (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That black mice crossed with white mice do not give gray mice, but black mice on the first generation and a mix of black and white mice in the second generation. ie how genes are inherited - the subject of the first paragraph. Perhaps this would be quicker if you could outline the areas you think should be covered. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That's Mendel's experiment with yellow peas and green peas. The section in Introduction to Genetics on Mendel doesn't even explain that experiment. If that's the most important idea to you, why don't you explain it there?
BTW, Mendel's observation, that the f1 generation of green and yellow peas are all yellow peas, isn't clearly explained in the Genetics article either. These articles just talk about the importance of Mendel's observations, but don't tell what Mendel's observations actually were. Nbauman (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope I have, in the first section on "How genes are inherited". Tim Vickers (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't find it. Where does it say that?
You can make a clear, simple statement in talk, like, "black mice crossed with white mice do not give gray mice, but black mice on the first generation and a mix of black and white mice in the second generation." Why not write as clearly and simply in the article? Nbauman (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It uses the example of eye color in people, instead of coat color in mice, to make this point. I thought that the readers of this article would find human examples more relevant and interesting. Which sentences exactly do you find complex and unclear in the first section? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's one:
In genetics, a feature of an organism is called a "trait", traits can be features of the physical appearance or behavior of an organism (for example, hair color, aggression, height, or weight).
One of the problems here is that you're introducing too many terms and concepts at once. First you talk about features. Then you talk about traits. Then you talk about physical appearance. You're talking about physical traits, which are concrete and intuitive to an ordinary reader, and behavioral traits, which are abstract and more complicated.
Where did Mendel go? You couldn't find a simpler, more concrete example of the idea you're trying to convey than Mendel's experiment with the green and yellow peas. (And in addition it would reinforce the important, fundamental idea that scientific knowledge comes from experiment, not from the authority of what some professor wrote on an educational web site). Nbauman (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Mendel's work may be seminal but is unrelated to real life. This article is intended to introduce genetics in an accessible way that shows why it matters in the real world. Your point about using simple traits is a good one though, we need to keep the lead as clear as possible. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The usual process of writing is that you write for a while, and then you go back and rewrite it. That's what I do. That's what everybody does. I routinely go through 3, 4 and frequently 10 drafts before I send in a manuscript. I go through my work and I simplify what I wrote, by replacing the compound sentences with simple, direct sentences, by replacing the passive voice with active voice, and by simplifying the vocabulary as much as possible and not using different words to describe the same concept.
The most important thing I do is to try to organize the work into a logical sequence. I usually have a central point (or two) that I'm trying to get across to the reader, and I try to make everything in the article support that central point. I sometimes write outlines, but at least I'll make a list of 5 or 6 points that I want to make in the article (even if I just tick them off on my fingers) and follow that.
I think you've done enough writing for now, and it's important to go over it again and start rewriting and organizing it. That's the only way to get clear, easy-to-understand writing. Nbauman (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I do that constantly as I go along. As you'll see if you look at the history. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I just read an article in Science about HIV prevention. The article had a clear organization: First, they covered the different groups that are susceptible; second, they covered the different prevention methods and the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of each.
What's the organization of your article? Nbauman (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's work in progress, please feel free to edit and improve the article yourself. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't figure out what you're doing.
Tim, I don't want to offend you, but many times when I'm writing something, I can see that it's not getting anywhere, and I tear it up and go back to the beginning.
I once worked with a laywer who had to write a memo over the weekend. He spent all Saturday morning drafting and rewriting the memo. Then he said, "You know what?" and he crossed out the first 5 pages that he had written and started again from a blank page. Then he started writing again and by the end of the day he had a well-organized memo. Good writers do that all the time.
If I were editing it and improving it, that's what I would do. I would start with the introduction and go back to the original version, and work from that. But I don't want to do that without a consensus.
I don't want to offend you, but if a scientist came to me with a manuscript like this (and they have) and asked me, as one writer to another, how to improve it, that's what I would say.
I'd say, "What is your main point? Give me your central idea, in a sentence," and we'd go on from there.
I honestly don't understand this. You've done this amazing job of managing this great Molecular and Cell Biology project, which I use every time I have to get through a difficult journal. But I can't make sense out of this article. (Although I have met many very good scientists who have a hard time writing for non-scientists.) Nbauman (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not offended in the least. I welcome specific and constructive suggestions. I also advise you to go ahead and be bold. As you think going back to the beginning would be better, I have created the page User talk:Nbauman/Introduction to genetics for you, where you can work on an alternative version. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews and comments

Please post reviews below, I'm particularly interested in pieces of the article that are hard to understand or assume too much prior knowledge. Thanks to everybody who can contribute. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tim, your note on the [Village pump] was an excellent idea. Nbauman (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
We're not drawing any traffic. I'm going to leave another note. Nbauman (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I just read it. It's about as simple as Genetics is going to get, good job. The only slightly complicated part is the inheritance, but I don't know any way you could explain it better. It's a complicated subject, after all. Matriak (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The question is, which is easier to understand: the current version or the original version before it was challenged in the RFD and completely rewritten? Nbauman (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary

I find a bit odd to find a glossary section right after the foreword. Isn't this what wikilinks are for? I think it breaks down the pace of the whole thing. GoEThe (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we discussed that in the proposal for deletion. One of the problems with learning genetics is that there are a lot of terms that are confusing someone who has never seen them before, and a reader can't possibly understand it if he doesn't understand the definitions of the terms. (Even the New England Journal of Medicine uses glossaries to define these terms in its articles on genetics.) That makes sense, doesn't it?
Some people say that with Wikilinks, you don't have to worry about defining things; you just link to the article on that word and you'll get an explanation. The problem is that it doesn't work. For example, take the word "allele." If you click to the entry allele, you'll get a description that is incomprehensible. Try it. If every article had a clear definition and explanation, we might be able to use Wikilinks, but they don't, and they won't for a long time. Nbauman (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to start a discussion that has already been addressed, but wouldn't that be a reason to go to the other articles and improve the definition there? After all, its all Wikipedia! This method just makes that there will be many different definitions for the same thing in the same number of articles that use the term. GoEThe (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If an article has many technical terms that your readers don't understand, your readers obviously won't understand the entire article either.
If, instead of explaining the terms clearly in the article, they have to click on the word and go to another link, they'll have a hard time getting through the article. If I have to click on six links to get through an article, I'll never get through it. It would be a distraction.
In this kind of material, it's very important for the reader to understand certain terms very clearly. If they don't understand the terms, they won't be able to get through the article. If your readers can't get through the article, there's no point in writing it.
If you look at a good textbook, or even a journal article, they will define critical terms repeatedly. Even the New England Journal of Medicine has a glossary of terms in some of its genetics articles.
The molecular biology and genetics articles are expanding very quickly. Many of them are very technical and haven't been edited to make them understandable to the layman.
If you were writing an article, and you linked to technical terms rather than defining them in the text, you'd have to go to every article that you linked to and edit that article to make sure it was understandable. You'd never get through the first article. You'd wind up in an infinite regression.
The New York Times actually does have links that you can click on for definitions of certain terms. I tried it a few times and I never used it any more. It didn't really work. It was too much of a distraction, and most of the time the explanation wasn't helpful.
Hyperlinked documents work for some purposes and not for others. A hyperlink to a definition can't be a substitute for defining an unfamiliar term in the body of the article in the first place. It just doesn't work.
Are you satisfied with that answer? Nbauman (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I certainly understand your point, and agree that technical terms must be defined. I am not convinced putting a glossary in the beginning of the article is the best option, but can't think of a better alternative. GoEThe (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check out the template Template:Genetics glossary, which is used in the current Gene article. -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What about it?
Take an example -- DNA. Would you agree that the definition of DNA in Introduction_to_genetics#Glossary is easier for a high school student to understand than the definition in Template:Genetics glossary?
Remember our audience: Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible. Nbauman (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
But would you agree that having a glossary on the right column would be better than in the middle of the text? If you do, perhaps we could improve this template, or make a new one with more accesible definitions (perhaps the one that are already in the article. GoEThe (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea. Put the definitions in a column on the right -- towards the top, where people would see them when they need them. Nbauman (talk)

BTW, for reference, here's the definition of DNA in Introduction_to_genetics#Glossary:

DNA is a long molecule that has the form of a "double helix", which looks like a twisted ladder. It is made of four types of simple units (like four different colors of beads on a string) and it is the sequence of these units that carries information, just as the sequence of letters carries information on a page.

and here's the definition from Template:Genetics_glossary:

A polymeric molecule made of deoxyribonucleotides, hence then name deoxyribonucleic acid. Most often has the form of a "double helix", which consists of two paired DNA molecules and resembles a ladder that has been twisted. The "rungs" of the ladder are made of base pairs, or nucleotides with complementary hydrogen bonding patterns.

Which one is easier for an ordinary reader to understand?

In order to understand the Genetics definition, you have to know what a polymer is, what base pairs are, and what nucleotides are. If somebody doesn't know what DNA is, I doubt that they would know what a polymer is.

If you didn't know what DNA was, this definition tells you, "DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid." That's no help. It doesn't even give the reason DNA is so important, which is that it carries genetic information. Nbauman (talk)

My point was the formatting, as GoEThe understood. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)