Talk:Cell nucleus

message: Is the article easy to understand?
    The article is fairily easy for people with or without backgrounds in biology to understand.  The terminology is not too technical for people without advanced knowledge in biology to understand.  When the article starts getting into more detail about the nucleus such as the structures, everything is clearly explained and easy to comprehend for just about anyone.  Some of the descriptions can get slightly word with the terminology, but with links provided to certain terms that are not common knowledge the article is easier to understand.  Overall, this article on the cell nucleus is a great way for people to learn more about the nucleus.
Is the article well organized?
    The article is well organized for the most part.  The introduction is a bit lengthy and contains information that could be put into a different section.  After the introduction, the article is broken up into sections containing different information about the cell nucleus which I think is great.  Each section has a heading to let the reader know what that particular section is going to be about.  It is easy for the reader to pinpoint exactly what section they need to read to find the information they are looking for.  Each section is also split up into subheadings for more indepth information about each topic.  Overall, the article has decent organization to make it flow for the reader.
Aruland25Aruland25 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell Nucleus Review 

message: With multinucleated cells, do the multiple nuclei function within the cell the same as a single nucleated cell, or are certain functions distributed among the other nuclei? 
Mammals were often used as examples throughout the article, do the nuclei of plants or any other class of animals share the same nuclei functions or do they differ in any ways? The same can be asked for Eukaryotic organisms. 
The article is full of useful information on the subject, making it easier to understand the topic. The nucleus is a complex organelle that is needed in the basic understanding of cellular function. The sections the article covers is clear and gives a summary of the sections in detail. A student needing to understand the nucleus would find this article useful. However, there are some minor details. The questions asked above will help give the article more information on the subject by answering them, ultimately, giving the intended reader a better understanding of the nucleus. 
Ian P. 9/30/2016 (IPletka (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-nucleated Cells   

message: In this section the links for closed and open cytosis links do not work.  It takes you to a page that has not yet been created.  I would also like to mention that I think the adage of the relationship between prophase and mitosis is a good addition.  Reading further down I think that cell envelope could have link since cell envelope is a researched topic.  Lamina is also mentioned near the same part and also does not have a link.  I would also like to talk a little about the fluidity of the section.  Would there be a way to still provide clarity to the cycles of the cell assembly and disassembly but make the apoptosis link at the beginning closer to the paragraph that describes it below?  Lastly, the section below it, discussions potential sources of illness, could have some more information or be added to another section.  
Ellis245 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assembly and Disassembly

message: A little ways down there is reference to work of Franz Bauer but no inclusion of his findings despite all of the other names mentioned having one.  Shortly after that there is a sentence that reads "he did not suggest a potential function".  If it has to be there I think it should be mentioned in the paragraph above, or not in it at all, since it is informative.  I do like the part that talks about cells coming from cells then goes to a paragraph about sex cells creating a cell.  This transition is very smooth.  Near the very end should there be a description or a link to the chromosome theory of heredity since it is the concluding finding of the information given above it?
  Ellis245 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Cell nucleus. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070929104104/http://intl.jcb.org/cgi/content/abstract/135/5/1195 to http://intl.jcb.org/cgi/content/abstract/135/5/1195
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cellimages.ascb.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%2Fp4041coll6
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cellimages.ascb.org/u/?%2Fp4041coll11%2C62
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cellimages.ascb.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%2Fp4041coll11
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cell nucleus. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070102032704/http://www.antibodypatterns.com/cytoplasmic.php to http://www.antibodypatterns.com/cytoplasmic.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, the standard of referencing for this article is not of that expected for a Featured Article. It has been over thirteen years since it was promoted and since then FA requirements have become far more stringent in this regard. Is there an editor prepared to update the citations? There are whole paragraphs that have no supporting citations.Graham Beards (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The above isn't an exhaustive list, just first impressions. But I think this article needs more than just a dusting-off to meet the modern FA criteria. The good news is that there's tons of literature on the nucleus and it's an interesting topic. I think if a few of us have a bit of time to put in, we should be able to get this article shined up in no time.  if you're interested, we can post at WT:MOLBIO and see if anyone else is willing to help out? I'm a bit swamped in real life at the moment, but I can certainly put some time into this article over the next couple of weeks. Ajpolino (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks  for your detailed review.  I have asked WT:MOLBIO for additional volunteers to help.  I will also work to update citations to the  5th edition (2004) of Lodish with the most recent editions of Alberts (2015) and Lodish (2016).  My time is also limited, but I will see what I can do to address some of the other issue that you have raised. Boghog (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FAR]] 

message: I'm copy/pasting some text here from Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Cell_nucleus so that we can discuss page improvements here instead of there. This can serve as a rough starting to-do list. Feel free to add more to-do items or check-off items as you get to them. For comments on whether or not this should remain listed as an FA, go to the actual FARC page.  
There is an extreme MOS:SANDWICH problem everywhere.  I suspect that attention to wikilinking is needed, but the topic is too dense for me to follow.   would you be able to give this a quick glance to see if there are significant issues relative to WP:WIAFA?  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  14:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The above isn't an exhaustive list, just first impressions. But I think this article needs more than just a dusting-off to meet the modern FA criteria. The good news is that there's tons of literature on the nucleus and it's an interesting topic. I think if a few of us have a bit of time to put in, we should be able to get this article shined up in no time.  if you're interested, we can post at WT:MOLBIO and see if anyone else is willing to help out? I'm a bit swamped in real life at the moment, but I can certainly put some time into this article over the next couple of weeks. Ajpolino (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks  for your detailed review.  I have asked WT:MOLBIO for additional volunteers to help.  I will also work to update citations to the  5th edition (2004) of Lodish with the most recent editions of Alberts (2015) and Lodish (2016).  My time is also limited, but I will see what I can do to address some of the other issue that you have raised. Boghog (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FARC]] 

message: I believe the introduction is quite wordy and could be more concise while achieving the same goal.----  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristenadams3821 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction change 

message: I believe the title should be nucleus, since in biology it is mainly used as in the second form; as a biologist I never came across the phrase "cell nucleus". perhaps, "cellular nucleus", though it is also rare.  Araz Zeyniyev (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell nucleus or nucleus 

message: Under "Structures" is written:"The size of the nucleus depends on the size of the cell it is contained in, with a nucleus typically occupying about 8% of the total cell volume." [Cantwell H, Nurse P (2019). "Unravelling nuclear size control". Current Genetics. Springer. 65 (6): 1282. doi:10.1007/s00294-019-00999-3. PMC 6820586. PMID 31147736.]
This is an excellent citation. I just read it. But the 8% are related to a fission yeast experiment!
It is not in all cell types typical, that the nucleus occupies 8% of the cell volume.
Actually, I am working currently with two mammalian cell types. The NC ratio of this cell is about 20%. And these are not abnormal cells I am working with. 
In my opinion, I would just delete "with a nucleus typically occupying about 8% of the total cell volume". 
The rest, inclusive citation, I would leave as it is. Ulmusfagus (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nucleus Size