This was the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject's November collaboration of the month and is currently rated A-class; will probably be going to FAC after the holidays. Specifically looking for thoughts and opinions on the accessibility of the text, especially the lead. Thanks. Opabinia regalis 05:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at the article and think it is a very interesting and comprehensive discussion of the subject. I think it meets all of the criteria of a featured article except for 1(a). My opinion is that the ideal readability of this type of article should fall at about the level of an non-biology college student who may be referencing the article for a general-ed biology course, (which may be an unrealistic standard, but its still a more complex readability standard than I would like to see most of the articles on Wikipedia). For starters, I think the article needs a huge reduction in the use of passive voice throughout the article to improve readability. In the process of doing that, it would clear up my other nit that in several instances, the article uses phrases like "it was discovered that..." without clarifying who discovered it. Great article. If you need more specific examples, let me know and I'd be happy to go into more detail. Neil916 (Talk) 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'd be interested in a few examples of what you consider problematic passive voice; aside from "the proteasome is assembled from..." and other such inoffensive cases, I only see "it has been reported/suggested that" type statements - which are there mainly to indicate that the data is too preliminary for a more definitive statement. The specific people doing the reporting/suggesting/etc. are unimportant; in a few cases the particular paper cited among several with similar conclusions is essentially arbitrary. Opabinia regalis 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]