Editing Eurovision Wiki:Teahouse (section)

== New article for "Phytochrome" (English language) ==

The current EN article "Phytochrome" is almost useless, so I have written a completely new one to replace it (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Photochrom/sandbox#%22Phytochrome%22). However, although I have a good understanding of the field, this is my first attempt at writing a Wikipeia article, so I would like an experienced person to take a look and suggest appropriate changes. 
Thanks for any help!
Best
Jon, aka Photochrom [[User:Photochrom|Photochrom]] ([[User talk:Photochrom|talk]]) 23:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

:When I click on that link to your completely new version, {{U|Photochrom}}, I arrive at just a single paragraph saying that you "have written a completely new version". But I don't see any version, old or new. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 23:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{Courtesy link|User:Photochrom/sandbox}} – [[User:Njd-de|NJD-DE]] ([[User talk:Njd-de|talk]]) 23:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::o, sorry - I thought you'd be able to switch to and from the article and its talk section. the article itself is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Photochrom/sandbox - at least when I view it....[[User:Photochrom|Photochrom]] ([[User talk:Photochrom|talk]]) 23:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Nice work so far.
:::Formatting issues: get rid of the citations in headings, add a "References" section at the bottom and put a {{tl|references}} tag there.
:::Content issues: There's a lot of editorializing in the "Historical apsects" section. Try to remove things sounding like subjective opinion ("Perhaps the most...", "had of course continued", and so on), and try for more brevity in the wall-of-text paragraphs.
:::You may want to propose your new version at [[Talk:Phytochrome]]. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 05:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

{{Od}} Certainly an ambitious draft! It makes a welcome change from -- but no, I mustn't offend other editors (a group certainly including myself). In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhotochrom%2Fsandbox&diff=1343900938&oldid=1343875129 this minor edit], I corrected date formatting, as the format you'd used brings syntax errors; there remain a number of analogous corrections to be made. We avoid attaching references to headings, subheadings, subsubheadings, etc; instead usually attaching the reference to the end of the paragraph(s) that it supports. Beyond that, I don't want to comment, primarily because of my profound ignorance of the subject and of background matters. I hope that other editors here, better educated than I am, take a look and add comments and suggestions. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 02:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

:@[[User:Photochrom|Photochrom]] One of the problems with a wholescale re-write like you propose is that you are not crediting the work of > 100 editors who have contributed to that article, many of whom will not agree it is currently "almost useless". Incremental changes are almost always better than re-writes. Your [[WP:EXPERT|expert views]] are welcome but may overwhelm Wikipedia's target audience with over-detailed and jargon-laden writing. (I could give examples from your sandbox but that's better done elsewhere.) Full disclosure: I have made one edit to [[Phytochrome]], on 27 January this year, its latest update. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 11:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::Sorry Mike, but I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to present humanity with useful, informative, current, reliable information. The current "Phytochrome" article fails this miserably except in a few places. I can't help it if well-meaning people have made contributions that are unimportant and/or confusing and/or, out-of-date and/or simply wrong!   Please bear with me while I explain the situation in some detail.
::- The first figure shows a crystal structure of a (mutant!) fragment of PaBphP, a "bathy"-type bacteriophytochrome (that is, one of the very unusual phytochromes that whose dark state in Pfr, not Pr as in almost all other phytochromes). In the meantime, near-complete structures even of plant phytochromes are known! In any case, it's clear that this is NOT an appropriate introductory illustration for a Wikipedia article! How many normal people have any idea about 3D protein structures?!
::- In the second paragraph: phytochromes DO NOT regulate chlorophyll biosynthesis. The limiting factors are the protochlorophyllide reductases.
::- The "Structure" section is confused, failing to describe the domains in bacterial and plant phytochromes accurately. It does not reference the PaBphP illustration (see above). It also says blandly "the PAS domain serves as a signal sensor and the GAF domain is responsible for binding to cGMP" - both statements are wrong or at the very least misrepresent the consensus opinion in the field. 
::- As phytochrome is a photoreceptor, its light absorption properties are centrally important. So what do we see in the second figure? An exceedingly bad sketch of two overlaid absorption spectra by someone and credited to "Devlin 1969" without any reference given! Furthermore, one of the curves is labelled "Pfr" (well, actually "P<sub>FR</sub> - which would be ok if the typography were to be correct), but unfortunately it isn't a Pfr spectrum (I can explain why if you like, but you can believe me!).
::- In the third figure, a paper from 1968 is cited and used to illustrate the chromophore and its behaviour during photoconversion from Pr to "P<sub>IR</sub>". It's completely wrong!
::- The section "Isoforms and states" is ok, but (understandably!) it references neither of the two relevant [sic] figures.
::- There follows a long, long section "Phytochromes' effect on phototropism" describing a trivial and largely irrelevant piece of physiological work published in 1977. Please note that there are THOUSANDS of papers at this level in the phytochrome field and that there is NO justification for including this one in particular.
::- The next section "Phytochrome effect on root growth" has the same problem, except that in this case, nothing is cited at all.
::- The "Biochemistry" section seems to have been written by one of the experts in the bilin biosynthesis field and is, in that respect, ok. It goes on to discuss gene regulation, though - and hardly does justice to the that exceedingly important aspect of phytochrome biology (I think the author would agree!)
::- The "Discovery" section is ok as far as it goes, but it fails to credit some very important studies that contributed hugely to the "discovery" of phytochrome (and were the reason that Borthwick's group started to work on it). The Kehoe & Grossman section places emphasis on their 1996 Science paper describing the ''RcaE'' gene - but it was not shown to be a photoreceptor until Hirose et al. (2013) corrected the sequence - and anyhow, it's a CBCR, not a canonical phytochrome. The section then goes on to describe the 3D structures known, but only up to 2014 - this field is ''boiling''!
::- The final "Genetic engineering" section is ok, although perhaps a little naïve.
::- Various reputable studies are referenced, but I would argue that the list gives a poor representation of the broad field and certainly misses several VERY important papers. For example, no one would question the central role of Peter Quail's lab in phytochrome research from 1980 - 2020, yet the only paper of his in the list is the artificial phy-PIF expression system for yeast.
::I apologise for the length of the above text, but how else can I make the enormity of the problem clear?! I hope you can now see a bit more exactly why I wrote my article from scratch. Incidentally, I had begun with the intention of (extensively) editing the current text, but soon realised that it would be pointless and almost impossible.
::Now, by describing the huge problem with the current "Phytochrome" article, I am not implying that my new version is perfect. I asked the community for input here exactly because it needs editing. I generally write primary research papers and reviews, neither of which follows the Wikipedia style. There a probably some technical terms that need (better) explanation - that's hard for me to judge. Also, whereas on the one hand, I might have missed a few topics, on the other, the "History" section is very long (maybe an initial summary would be helpful for users who only want a brief overview).
::Ok, time for bed!
::Best, jon [[User:Photochrom|Photochrom]] ([[User talk:Photochrom|talk]]) 23:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::OK, I'll offer some additional advice, although you haven't followed the earlier advice I gave above.
:::The community's preference is to make incremental changes, but if the article needs a wholesale rewrite, you can propose that too on the talk page. You made a case that there is enough wrong with the original that a wholesale replacement may be justified.
:::Remember, articles need to be written for a layman to understand, as much as possible, although this is understandably not possible for some subject areas such as higher mathematics. The lead section of the original article is understandable. On the other hand, your lead section quickly dives deep into jargon-filled descriptions that are opaque to a general reader.
:::The lead section should not introduce any information that isn't in the body text. Think of the lead section as an abstract. It should summarize the main points of the body text. Neither version does a good job of this.
:::Also, you're changing the variety of English. On Wikipedia, the guideline is to preserve English spelling being used, and not replace it with another English variety. The original article uses US spelling, your replacement uses British. Perhaps Oxford spelling would be a happy medium (it's still British). ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 04:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Please, please do it bit-wise, and discuss with other editors on the talk page. I've looked at your version as well as the original. You clearly have a lot of factual information to add, but I think your expertise makes it hard for you to see how your writing appears to a non-expert. Parts of it assume knowledge beyond what should be assumed in a tertiary sources such as an encyclopedia. There is a difference between writing a review article for a journal, and writing a wikipedia article that must make sense to a vaguely-biologically-aware member of the public. Your changes will be much, much better if you allow other editors to collaborate with you on this. You have the potential to improve the article substantially, but be careful about throwing out the pre-existing article completely - it has some good aspects too. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 12:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Hi Elemimele,
:::::I'm fine with suggestions as to improving the accessibility of my text, but I am NOT going to edit the current version (if that's what you mean by doing it "bit-wise").
:::::(1) I had tried to explain that the great majority of the current text is useless, and the same is true for most of the illustrations. It's obvious for anyone who knows the field. I could suggest a few colleagues who could provide their opinions. 
:::::(2) What aspects of the current version do you think are good? If you could be more specific, I'd be happy to comment on them.
:::::(3) In my criticisms of the current version, I noted a couple of sections that are ok, but it would hardly be worthwhile to somehow "fit them in" when everything else has to be written from scratch. It would be much, much better if the people who wrote the "ok" sections were to comment on the new version. My initial request here was for people to help to improve my version of the "Phytochrome" article (see also my reply to Anachronist), so I'd be delighted if editors of the current version ("other editors"?) were to collaborate in this way.
:::::best, jon [[User:Photochrom|Photochrom]] ([[User talk:Photochrom|talk]]) 23:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Hi [[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]],
::::My request was that people make suggestions as to how to improve my "Phytochrome" article, so thanks for your earlier suggestions - which I will of course implement once a few other, more fundamental "issues" are clarified. 
::::Up to now in this discussion I have outlined why the current article is useless except in a couple of sections and should therefore be deleted and (hopefully!) replaced. 
::::My lead section was intended to say what phytochromes are; that is, to define the term. The current version does a rather poor job of this, even if you find it understandable. It appears to me to have been written on the fly and without much deliberation. If my version has too many "opaque" terms, those can be replaced by more generalised text. I can also generate an abstract, if that's what you want. Note that the current lead section does not represent an abstract by any stretch of the imagination! 
::::It really makes no difference to me what English "variety" is used. 
::::best, jon [[User:Photochrom|Photochrom]] ([[User talk:Photochrom|talk]]) 22:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)