Talk:DNA nanotechnology
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR
|action1date=04:08, 19 April 2011
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/DNA nanotechnology/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=424485492
|action2=FAC
|action2date=16:37, 24 January 2012
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/DNA nanotechnology/archive1
|action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=472882565
|action3=WPR
|action3date=03:21, 22 May 2012
|action3result=copyedited
|action3oldid=493766570
|action4=FAC
|action4date=02:51, 13 July 2012
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/DNA nanotechnology/archive2
|action4result=promoted
|action4oldid=500598147
|dykdate=28 November 2007
|dykentry=...that the field of DNA nanotechnology has used the unique molecular recognition properties of DNA to construct two-dimensional lattices, nanomechanical devices, computers, polyhedra, and even a smiley face out of DNA?
|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=August 14, 2012
|maindate2=October 9, 2017
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|
{{WikiProject Biophysics|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Chemistry|importance=mid}}
}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Archive box|Archive 1}}
Comment
Doing the synopsis for the Signpost, I must admit I can't really get past the introduction. Perhaps I lack the context for this, but I must say that an Introduction to DNA nanotechnology article may be a good idea, similar to Introduction to evolution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
:I'll go give the synopsis a look. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a question
Dont know if anyone else has questioned this but are stem cells better than trusting viruses .. has viruses are living organisms which CAN mutate in my theology .. I am not well educated and I suffer with mania sometimes ... sorry for the inconvenience this may cause and I do no wish to plagiarize any body elses work ... just my own head popping thoughts xxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.235.168 (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
TFA reruns
Any objections to throwing this article into the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2)? Any cleanup needed? I see no dead links or missing references. - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Use of personal pronoun in the introduction
I noticed the article starts with:
I'm savGdesign and manufacture of artificial nucleic acid structures for technological uses.
That doesn't seem right regarding WP:NPOV but since this is an stared article I'm hesitant to edit. Thoughts?
Max Nordlund (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Needs update and reduction of hype about "potential"
I don't want to disrupt this while it is on the front page but we probably need to review its FA status
The main problems are
- reference updating: Most of this is sourced from the early to mid 2000s; there is no ref on the science later than 2011.
- improving source quality: trimming back of reliance on primary sources and there is at least one instance of churnalism -- [http://www.fiercepharma.com/drug-delivery/dna-cages-can-unleash-meds-inside-cells this ref] -- which no FA in Wikipedia should have)
- reduction of hype: this is clearly written by someone who believes strongly in the potential of this technology, but As far as I know there are no products in the market in any field using DNA nanotechnology... this remains just "potential". This stuff might never be useful for anything more than play (and I mean that in the best sense of the word -- pushing boundaries to see what we can do). For something to become a product it needs to solve an actual problem that people have, and do so robustly, safely, effectively, and at reasonable cost.