Talk:DNA damage (naturally occurring)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DNA damage (naturally occurring) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Comment on general style and layout of article[edit]

Comment. Two things immediately stand out from this page. First, the title of this page needs to be clearly defined. See WP:LEADSENTENCE. The current lead sentence is written in such a way that it assumes that the lay reader understands or ~~assumes~~knows what ~~naturally occurring~~ DNA damage is or that it happens. Second, the list of the number of damaged cells per species should be presented in a tabular format for easy reading. See HELP:TABLE. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your helpful comments! I plan to try to improve the Lead Section shortly. I plan to look into changing the list to a table after that.Bernstein0275 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I made a more appropriate lead sentence, as recommended. This led to seeing how I should amplify and upgrade the article. I still plan to change the list to a table in the near future. The needed table is somewhat complicated. Bernstein0275 (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the mammalian-centric statistic on the number of damages done to DNA in one day is interesting, it still doesn't define DNA damage. It is akin to saying in the first sentence in an article about the United States that there are over 300 million citizens in the United States but not stating what the United States is. Your lead sentence should start as follows:

DNA damage is the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXXX. Damage to DNA that occurs naturally can result from XXX XXX XXX.......

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Also, if you are having trouble constructing a table, I recommend that you look at examples in the following articles: neuroscience and science. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your detailed suggestion on the lead sentences made it much clearer, and I think the new changes much improved the article. Thanks a lot for your help! I plan to work on changing the list to a table soon. Bernstein0275 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. It is definitely more helpful to general readers. Looking forward to more productive changes. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

damage to DNA and mutation[edit]

Are they distinct or are mutations specific forms of damages to DNA? I include errors into "damages" here. --41.150.171.237 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]