# Talk:Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology

I've added a few cite needed tags for unsourced info.
Shouldn't be too hard to fix. 
— Cirt (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Amkilpatrick perhaps you could address this? — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, thanks for pointing out. Amkilpatrick (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 11:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


### Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 30, 2014, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is indeed well-written in clear wording. It is especially good at grounding the reader with context and background in appropriate places, when necessary. Couldn't hurt to have some more copy editing for conciseness throughout, there were a couple longer sentences but really not too bad.
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. Some concerns prior to GA Review about uncited material but these were either cited and addressed or uncited material removed by the nominator.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects of breadth and scope of topic.
4. Neutral point of view?: Presented in a neutrally worded tone throughout, no issues here.
5. Article stability? Upon inspection of article edit history, talk page, and talk page edit history, no outstanding issues going back over one year.
6. Images?: I did some minor formatting on a few image pages on Wikimedia Commons to make them look a tad bit more presentable. Otherwise totally fine here.
Great job overall bringing access to everyday readers and laypeople to a topic on a complex subject matter.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The first ISMB conference was in 1993.  If I were married in that year, my twentieth anniversary would be in 2013.  However, it is the conference in 2012 that is labeled the "twentieth anniversary" conference.  Assuming that that is indeed what the organizers (mis?)labeled it, should this discrepancy nonetheless be somehow noted in the article?  (Similarly, the first ECCB conference was held in 2002 and yet its "tenth anniversary" falls in 2011, which is mentioned in this article because they are sometimes held jointly.)  Leegrc (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Amkilpatrick could you address this question by Leegrc ? — Cirt (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree; I've changed the relevant lines to "20th ISMB meeting" and "10th ECCB meeting". The organisers use "20th anniversary" (see here, for instance) but I think the updated version is clearer. Hope that helps, Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have the information, perhaps update the table of conferences that includes year and venue to also include which date range during that year.  Leegrc (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)