Talk:Pardis Sabeti

message: Statistical tests for natural selection have been around for ages. Hitchhikings been known about for ages. Can someone who knows about this area clarify why her tests important - whats new about it etc.
Tootootoot (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC
There are different tests of selection each of which have different properties in terms of the pattern of selection they define. The tests that are proposed by Sabeti find very recent patterns of selection.130.60.48.3 (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Novelty of her test

message: All the stuff about her being a genius is a bit demeaning to the article and to her. She's obviously a bright young researcher but there's not much evidence to distinguish her beyond that. To cast her as a modern Einstein or Darwin is really pretty silly.  I think this probably led to sarcastic edits which I have removed.Tootootoot (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the Science magazine article which is cited in this entry? That's the source of some of the stuff you deleted, including her mathematics background. Why don't you accept Science as a reliable source? Nbauman (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says she's interested in maths, she enjoys it, but the article implies she read medicine. I'm happy to revert it if there is evidence she has a maths background - i.e. has studied mathematics at university level.
Tootootoot (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Froth

message: The subject seems to be an up-and-coming young researcher, but anyone who gives the article more than a cursory examination will see that its over-promotional tone is out of context for WP articles (WP:PEACOCK). A few specifics:
* Many of the technical claims seem to rest on Sabeti et al cited in the article, but if you check this publication, you find it is a "consortium" publication (not uncommon in biology these days) from many labs. Importantly, there are over 250 authors for this paper! The article implies that this is mainly Sabeti's work, which is grossly misleading, especially since the paper's author list indicates Sabeti is not one of the principal investigators.
* Having the UK Telegraph "list of geniuses" in the lead-in actually strikes me as demeaning Sabeti, considering some of the nonsensical entries like ranking speculator/activist George Soros above theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. This list seems to speak more to celebrity than genius and should probably be relegated to the bibliography.
*The work on the Lassa fever genes would seem to be significant, but the article cites a fluff-piece in Science instead of the corresponding publication. We are left wondering how to find this publication.
It would be nice to see an accurate, de-peacocked, more sober description of Sabeti in this article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Still Problematic

message: Problem with this entry -- Wikipedia is written for the non-specialist, say, a high school biology student. Most of this entry is written for the specialist. It's like a CV. 
If you're considering giving her a grant, you might be concerned that she got a Packard award and an NIH Innovator award. If you're trying to learn biology, and learn about what she's doing, those awards mean nothing. 
The section on "Research" is so technical that I had to read it three times to understand it, and I already know what she's doing. There's no excuse for having it so technical, because her work has been written up in many popular magazines, or even in the news sections of professional journals like Science, where they've explained her work in simple layman's language and show you how to do it. 
Earlier version of this article did have less technical explanations of her work, but it was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pardis_Sabeti&oldid=303145025 As the entry progresses, it gets more and more technical (violating WP guidelines). 
It's particularly a shame because evolutionary genetics is so important, and this entry should be used to explain evolutionary genetics to non-specialists. --Nbauman (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical, too much of a CV