Talk:Gene gun

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 Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aspera0.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 22:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Biolistics

Hope you like this article. My Cornell B.S. in Biology is now finally worth something. Raazer

Nice to see B.S. not going to waste (I'll have mine in a few months). Do you think

Biolistics should be redirected here, or would it be a different enough topic to require an individual page.--ZZ

12:00, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice to meet other interested people.

Lots of people might be involved in the study of biolistics, maybe you or your professors. If there is a study of biolistics, it would be a separate subject from one of the tools used in it (the particle delivery system)

Edited this reply to make it shorter Raazer 22:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wrong Sanford

The John Sanford link connects to the entry for the writer, not the biologist.

Time reference?

Hi, it's good to see a comprehensive article, along with the history of the development of gene guns. However, is it possible to add some time reference (e.g. 1970s), so people can know when the technology came into being? --163.7.4.8 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought.... Done (1983..1986). ★NealMcB★ (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup thoughts

In my opinion, this page could use some major cleanup and rewrites.

The introductory paragraph is a good start, but could use some expansion and certainly a fix of the typographical errors.
The "design" section should probably be broken into a few different sections: let's say "history" and maybe "theory of operation". This section could also greatly benefit from rewrites and copyediting.
"Application" could use some work -- like some elaboration on how the injected DNA makes its way into the plant chromosome (links to appropriate articles would be great).

Thoughts? --

(talk) 03:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed, but the article could also use some breakdown of its benefits and its disadvantages/limitations even if that's just one or two paragraphs under "application". The "design" section also needs some expanding and clarification.

Anyone think these changes are a bad idea?

Aspera0 (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sections from my sandbox to here, specifically the biolistic construct design, Advantages and limitations. My sandbox is here

Aspera0 (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gene gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029191933/http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/25239/1/018_33.pdf to http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/25239/1/018_33.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Reference 7 -- Citing an entire book and finding the proper pages that can be used for a specific reference

As has been properly marked, reference 7 cites an entire book without specifying particular pages within the text. Does anyone know of the best mechanism to proceed to specify these pages for any reader who may seek to verify particular pieces of information on a specific page? I am not sure if the original author who first inserted the reference is still active as it was done years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1402:89C1:B449:EC49:815B:F18A (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]