Talk:Mexico presents first population-wide genome map for a Latin country

Copy-editing

the review was rejected because the article "needs significant copy-editing before review". what does this mean? >_> Revoluc (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the non-specific directions. However, this article has issues in readability. For example, was the president the one who uploaded the genetic map to the internet? "The next step is to perform genetic analyses": says who?

It contains oversimplification of human races ... perhaps due to the Mexico-centric sources, but that should be untangled here. Does this really represent the entire Latin genome? Mexico is a large nation to be sure, but still ...

Style-wise, it should not contain in-text links to non-Foundation websites ... the WP-linking is inconsistent, yet repetitive. --SVTCobra 00:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

got it. ill take care of it and resubmit it Revoluc (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

also, about the genome representing all of Latin America, if thats what the title makes it sound like i guess i need to fix it. it was going to be something like "first Latin genome map unveiled", but i figured Latin individuals had had their genome analyzed before, so i added "population-wide" to show that a good number of samples were used. i also added "reveals traits of novel race" to make it more appealing, but im not sure if thats misleading too. any suggestions for the title from anyone would be appreciated. Revoluc (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making the fixes. Unfortunately, my Spanish is not good enough for me to review this. Hopefully, someone will come along soon. --SVTCobra 22:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

guess ill just have to wait. thank you for taking the time to improve the article Revoluc (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Image too small

This citation produces an image to small to read. *Irma Silva-Zolezzi et al.. "Analysis of genomic diversity in Mexican Mestizo population to develop genomic medicine in Mexico" — PNAS, May 11, 2009 SriMesh | talk 01:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

my bad! i just noticed this message and the review result >_<

so i just realized i screwed up the link to the article and fixed it. it should be downloadable now, but its over 12 megs

perhaps the two instances of this reference should be merged? Revoluc (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

if it helps i found this article that uses PNAS as a source: Vaccine targets obesity in rats. Revoluc (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

perhaps i should also mention that the article is freely available from the institute's site (just changed the "external links" section to point to the english version). if u click on the "The Mexican Genome Diversity Project" banner and then go to "Article" youll see the link to the pdf file (the link i had screwed up before :P ). Revoluc (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Review1

Revision 819255 of this article has been reviewed by SriMesh (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: awaiting advice for me NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Need advice about adding a journal entry and opening english journal - sent out queries awaiting answer Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 819255 of this article has been reviewed by SriMesh (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: awaiting advice for me NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Need advice about adding a journal entry and opening english journal - sent out queries awaiting answer Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

This content can be re-added if a reviewer can access the journal

talk page

about the state specific data, i took it from the PNAS publication (supplementary information's table S2, page 12). the ratios are 0.362 ± 0.089 and 0.616 ± 0.085 for Sonora, and 0.660 ± 0.138 and 0.285 ± 0.120 for Guerrero. i converted these to percentages and, taking into account the uncertainties, rounded up Sonora's values to units, and Guerrero's to tens. the comment on the correlation with Mexico's history is in the second paragraph of the discussion (page 5)

in this same paragraph is the data from "Although West African", except for the Asia part, which is from the table mentioned above. comment from Revoluc

• Above comment in reply to: I couldn't verify the state specific facts you added to the article such as the paragraph beginning "Genetic diversity" "Although West African" comment on talk page from SriMesh

I cannot open the journal (in English) which can be accessed via open access, I can open the abstract so far.

If anyone can open the journal the following content can be re-added upon verification.

Genetic diversity within the country was also analyzed through samples from six geographically distant states. This revealed that ancestry can vary from 36% Amerindian and 62% European in the Northern state of Sonora, to 70% Amerindian and 30% European in the Southern state of Guerrero, which correlates with Amerindian population density throughout Mexico's history. This Amerindian component is what ultimately separates Mestizos from other races.Although West African ancestry was found to be less than 10%, it was found to be relatively higher in the states through which African slaves entered the country during the Colonial period, namely Guerrero and Veracruz. Interestingly enough, even though America is believed to have been populated from Asia, East Asian ancestry was found to be only less than 2%. SriMesh | talk 16:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Review2

Revision 819389 of this article has been reviewed by SriMesh (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 819389 of this article has been reviewed by SriMesh (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

thanks for the review. i dont see the article in the main page. is there a problem with the tag? Revoluc (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears the article wasn't "sighted" after being published, and therefore did not appear on the main page. I've marked it as approved now, it should appear in the recent articles list. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

nice! thanks to all of u who contributed on this article :D

id just like to confirm that the PNAS article is downloadable from the fixed link (the source by "Irma Silva-Zolezzi et al.") since no one seems to be able to confirm the paragraphs mentioned above. also, should this source be merged with the last one (the one SriMesh added)? Revoluc (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)