Talk:DNA nanotechnology

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 -- 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.

-- Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)