Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclol

Cyclol[edit]

Self-nomination. The cyclol model was a historically important early model of protein structure. Although ultimately proven incorrect by experiment, several elements were eventually verified; most importantly, cyclol reactions are a key element of several types of alkaloids, such as the ergopeptides (which happen to be related to LSD). The cyclol model is also an excellent illustration of the scientific method. The references are thorough and I hope that you'll find the text interesting and well-written. Thanks for your comments and suggestions for improving the article! Willow 17:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good, but before I support, I have one question: shouldn't the article be at Cyclol hypothesis rather than Cyclol? —Cuivi é nen 18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wondered about that as well; but I eventually chose the more general name, cyclol, which refers to a historical protein model, a chemical reaction and a class of chemical compounds such as ergotamine. Given how interrelated they are, it didn't seem helpful to make separate articles for those topics, so I put them together under a common title. Hoping that this answers your question, Willow 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. In that case, I can support this well-written and excellently sourced article. —Cuivi é nen 03:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support excellent article - even more so given that it didn't exist at all until a couple of months ago and was ~~almost~~ _{nope, actually the occasional others were just bots, sorry :)} entirely written by Willow. I think I already got all the nitpicks out my system - except the minor comment that "excellent illustration of the scientific method" might be a bit editorializing. Opabinia regalis 02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Opabinia! The article is really the child of several editors, whose thoughtful suggestions and contributions have helped her grow up: you of course, the kind folks at the Chemistry WikiProject such as Wim van Dorst and Physchim62, and our own FA Zen master Tim Vickers. Thanks, all!

I know what you mean about flirting with editorializing adjectives like "excellent". However, I do think it's verifiable that the history of the cyclol model illustrates how the scientific method works, and does so in an unusually clear way on a fundamental topic (protein structure). So it doesn't seem a stretch to describe it as "excellent". Willow 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object with regret, as it is mostly an excellent article. However I feel that the section on the "scientific method" is Popperian PoV-pushing... It needs to be rewritten, with reference not only to the view of Karl Popper but also to those of other philosophers of science such as (my fave') Imre Lakatos. I will, of course, try to help out here, as I entirely sympathize with Willow when he/she says that it isn't an easy topic! Physchim62 15:30, 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried re-writing this to make it an example of falsifiability, rather than the scientific method in general. By being more specific here it removes the implication that falsifiability is the only part of the scientific method (which I see as probably true, but is my own POV). See what you think. TimVickers 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't feel regret, Physchim62, about expressing your true opinion, since no doubt others will think likewise; whatever may happen in science, Wikipedia articles certainly improve from harmonizing different perspectives and reaching consensus. I can honestly say, though, that I'm not consciously pushing a Popperian PoV since I've never read even one word of his work, nor any of Imre Lakatos. The method of considering multiple theories and eliminating the false ones seems much older than the 20^th century, wouldn't you agree? I seem to recall reading it in works by Rene Descartes, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton; even Aristotle begins many of his works by incinerating earlier theories and sifting the diamonds from the ashes (right after he defines his terminology!). With all due respect to Popper and Lakatos, I think that this article — which is fundamentally about the history of biochemistry — wouldn't be improved by a discussion of the philosophy of the scientific method. Perhaps we can find a compromise? Willow 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote it a bit Willow, and this may have addressed the concern, but I'm not sure. TimVickers 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a half-finished proposal on the talk page for illustration purposes. All comments welcome. Physchim62 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clearly-written, illuminating and well-referenced. Excellent work. TimVickers 23:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's an excellent article. I'll have a go at reproducing the cyclol reaction formulae in SVG format, but otherwise I can see no problems. La ï ka 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support No awkward prose, well-referenced, fluid. Good work! riana_dzasta 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written and referenced --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]