# Talk:European Nucleotide Archive

This review is transcluded from Talk:European Nucleotide Archive/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Estevezj (talk · contribs) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


### Criteria
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:


#### Result
#### Discussion
Apologies for the delayed review. I had set this aside in order to submit an interlibrary loan to obtain Ref. #6, but as it already has been too long I thought I should submit the review as is. 
All in all, the article is a concise, well-illustrated, and well-referenced overview of the ENA and its history. The article meet or exceeds the criteria for a good article, and as such, it will pass once I get a copy of Kneale and Kennard (1984). It is a good model for the development of other articles on biological databases to follow.
Additional suggestions below.

Many thanks for such a thorough review. I'd noticed the et al.-related hidden category but didn't really understand it; it's now fixed and I've learnt something for next time so thanks (same goes for the val template).
I am keen to expand the article further but am wary of WP:NOTMANUAL and relying too much on their website as a self-published primary source. Still if you have further thoughts on expansion I'd be interested in hearing them. Thanks for the help with image licensing too Jebus989✰ 11:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
It is easy to see how one could quickly run afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING-type concerns in an article like this. That said, this is the best article in its category Category:Biological databases (at least as far as I can tell), and to a certain extent it will serve as a model for many others, including defining the parameters of a focused or comprehensive article on the topic. Which is all a rather long-winded way of saying that I think you have substantial discretion in how to proceed. Some ideas:
How is data synchronized between databases? Other back-end questions.
Flat-file format, expand until you have enough for a stub, then split it off.
Doubling time figure. Graphical view
How much does it all cost? What's the ROI?
Brief examples from the literature of the kinds of analyses and meta-analyses that scientists can use it for.
Some of these are dependent on finding secondary sources, others are dependent on the intended audience (undergraduates? Beginning grad students?). One or more may be inane. There should be some additional attention from editors who notice its listing.
However, as far as this review is concerned, I have received a copy of Kneale and Kennard (1984), confirmed the quotation, and passed the article. Thanks for your work here.— James Estevez (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks a lot for the ideas and for the review Jebus989✰ 21:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


### Beyond the scope
### Additional Notes
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on European Nucleotide Archive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130208055746/http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.elis.tmu.edu.tw:80/Traces/sra/ to http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.elis.tmu.edu.tw/Traces/sra/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the dataset synced with others? I know that NCBI syncs their dataset to japan and europe but I am unsure about the ENA being included here. 2A02:8388:1641:3580:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)