Talk:Transfer DNA

message: Evaluation for Writing Class
Is the material organized and focused? This article is focused and organized into its various components to a limited extent and hence, has a lot of room for an improvement. As it has been rated as Start article of mid-priority by Wikipedia Talk section, it speaks about its need for an improvement to strengthen the article. 
Is the presentation understandable? The article is clearly written and is unambiguous. However, the article is not clear to be understood by the broader audience because needful elaborations do not follow the usage of technical terms. 
Does the article cover the topic comprehensively,
partially, or is it an overview? It does not provide complete information about the subject. Headings and subheadings, images and diagrams are provided at appropriate places, and the content is chronological as well. However, various aspects of the topic are not well balanced. For example, transformation with subheadings, mechanism, and uses in mutagenesis need more information corroborated by most recent citations.  Thus, the article is partially successful in covering all aspects of the topic. The article does not cover the topic comprehensively but covers partially.
What is the quality of the evidence? The quality of the evidence provided is not good as the information provided is valid but not cited well.
Does the article have references or is it just someone’s knowledge. Were assumptions made? In support of the article, references to reliable sources have been cited but they are few and lack recent references. It appears to be an uncited chunk of information. Assumptions were made in stating mechanism of action of T-DNA insertion as the mechanism sub-section does not contain any citation. topic.
How might the content be improved? A comprehensive knowledge about the topic supported by reliable and updated references, figure about mechanism can help to improve this article. A few more addition of sentences and reconstitution into a proper structure of introduction would facilitate its improvement.
Does the article have an introduction? The lead section has provided a comprehensible introduction to the topic. A couple of sentences in a plain language and the rest of it is having more technical and scientific language. 
Is the introduction understandable and does it summarize the article’s key points? Although the structure of lead section provides ground to introduce the topic but does not summarize the important sub-sections to highlight article's key points within the lead section. 
Are there several headings and subheadings? It does contain subheadings and headings although the sections are not well balanced.
Is there anything missing? All the sections under sub-headings and introduction need elaboration and more of information along with links, updated citations are missing.
Are there images and diagrams at appropriate places, and appendices and footnotes at the end? There are images, diagrams, and appendices at appropriate places but no footnotes at the end. 
Is the coverage neutral (unbiased)? The coverage is neutral. 
Are facts emphasized? Rather there are no facts included in the article and were not emphasized. More of the facts can be listed here along with the citation. More of elaborations are demanded.
Are the references reliable sources? Why or why not? The references are from reliable sources which are either peer-reviewed primary sources like The Plant Cell or a published book chapter. The links for work as well.
Dasmeet.kaur (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The lead section has provided a comprehensible introduction to the topic in plain language. Although the structure of lead section is clear but does not summarize the important sub-sections within the lead section. So, it is focused and organized to an extent but needs to be improved. Overall, the article is not clear to understand for a broader audience because needful elaborations do not follow the usage of technical terms. It does not provide complete information about the subject. Headings and subheadings, images and diagrams are provided at appropriate places, and the content is chronological as well. However, various aspects of the topic are not well balanced. For example, transformation with subheadings, mechanism, and uses in mutagenesis need more information about them with citations. Mechanism subsection does not contain any citation. Thus, the article is partially successful in covering all aspects of the topic. In support of the article, references to reliable sources have been cited but they are few and lack recent references. Hence, comprehensive knowledge about the topic supported by reliable and recent references, figure about mechanism can help to improve this topic.  
Dasmeet.kaur (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's true anymore. The lead paragraph jumps into something that most people coming to this page do not know how to evaluate or even relate to the common usage, in public, of this term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Cubedo (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfer DNA 

message: There are some articles that cover similar topics that might either help strengthen this article or perhaps combined with this article. Aperium (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Pages 

message: Ok 2400:AC40:B48:2571:FFF0:8A6C:2866:35C9 (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why vector need to dna and vir gene 

message: T DNA 2409:4043:4B8F:6E8D:0:0:2608:340B (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  T DNA in Hindi