Talk:Karyotype
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
More details about karyotyping and its use in finding diseases and such are welcome. Grandmasterka 09:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed merger from Chromosome banding
Contents |
[edit] voting
- no, don't merge. I think rather move spectral karyotype section from karyotype and just link from there to the main article, as they are two different whole subjects, even while it seems there isn't any content or someone to add or support any of them.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Caue.cm.rego (talk • contribs)
Comment: What about putting Chromosome banding and the section on SKY technique in an article called Karyotype visualisation techniques? --apers0n 08:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On the contrary
No, not completely. You can have a splurge in there for SpecKaryotyping, but also have a main article on the subject, and link the two.
Halberdier25 23:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reverting history
I don't have any idea which is the correct version - the original version, or the version with the changes that 68.116.197.195 added. 212.219.232.85's changes clearly were vandalism, and only one of the two edits got fixed before 68.116.197.195's changes, which Samsara reverted. I'm assuming that Samsara knew what he or she was doing in removing the intermediate changes, and that, as a result, the proper version is the January 25 one. If that's true, then the most recent substantive contribution was Cohesion's Dec 31, 2006 edit.--Rkstafford 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Revision
It says that R-Banding is the opposite of C-Banding but R-Banding is the opposite of G-Banding not C-Banding. I just learned about this in my Human Genetics class and asked my professor to ensure that I am correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.116 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Intro
I think it is a bad sign that the intro to this article never actually mentions the word "Karotype". It is very unfriendly to bio novices. Verkhovensky 04:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's an even worse sign that the article appears not to realise that karyotype = chromosome number! (+ form) I'll fix that plus ref. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lack of biological perspective
The article depends almost exclusively on the example of human chromosomes, thus losing sight of the tremendous range of variation in the eukaryote kingdom. There is also an unhealthy emphasis on laboratory cytological techniques at the expense of a proper overview of the scientific issues which the techniques help to answer. In these respects the article is quite defective; the obsession with human genetics and lab techniques prevents a consideration of evolutionary questions, which is one of the main objectives of a biological approach. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think this is more or less fixed now. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
