Talk:Microbiology

Inappropriate Historical Information
It is entirely inappropriate to treat ancient religious dogma as a historical facet of microbiology. The idea of invisibly tiny animals of Jainism has no more relevance to microbiology's history than stories of Zeus et al living on a mountaintop would be relevant to an archeologist uncovering the remains of a human settlement on said mountain. In both cases myth is being confused with fact due to a superficial resemblance. The Jainist beliefs this article references are nothing more than myths and have no actual connection to microbiology, and therefore should not be present in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B078:6C00:4544:D028:E2FD:D5FA (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arika.solarez21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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. Peer reviewers: Rcarr101.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Heading structure for History
The History section currently has one level of subsections to organise its contents. This seems sufficient for the content, and it's generally best to avoid deeper nesting in tables of contents in any case. If the titles are not liked then we can freely discuss those, but 'Ancient times' and 'Medieval' are de facto standards across many articles, so perhaps 'Early Modern' is the logical (and quite common) section heading for that period of history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Branches added again
I added the branches again (someone else already did this). I think removing them was not a good idea. They might even deserve an own page. It is a very good overview and as far as I know the most complete I have seen on wikipedia. It contains all the needed links to other pages on wiki. No idea why this was deleted in the first place.

The article needs some rewriting in general. Garnhami (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The "it's useful" argument is not suitable for Wikipedia: recall that it is not a directory. The article indeed needs "some rewriting": some reliable sources to permit verification might be rather a good start. As for putting the list, when suitably cited, on a separate page, that would make a lot more sense than having an uncited list interfering with the flow of text of this article. I think your addition of uncited, undiscussed, unexplained, uncommented lists inappropriate, and suggest we delete them from here immediately. Rather than faff around, I've created a list article for you, leaving the summary paragraph here. No doubt both the summary and the separate list can be improved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean with uncited, undiscussed, unexplained, uncommented list. I see it like this: 1) the list is cited (ok, granted 2 references, and they are mentioned before the lists starts, I do not see how else I could site it) 2) uncommented? The comments or the explanations of the list on the specific wikipages itself, if you have to comment it on this page itself,the page would be way too long 3) unexplained?The list itself is indeed not really explained, but the explanation is on those specific pages. I think the list (or the new page) can be a nice addition to wikipedia. So thank you for making that page. About your comment on: Wikipedia is not a directory, I actually checked it and could not find anything bad here. a)Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics => it is not loosely associated b) Genealogical entries => not the case here c) The White or Yellow Pages. => no d) Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. => also not the case e) Sales catalogues => not the case either f)Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations => not the problem here g)Simple listings without context information => I can see you have a point here, but some do have some explanation, and I'll try to improve it a bit more.

Garnhami (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion - Article for deletion on Modern Mars habitability
There is an article at AfD that may interest you. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability

Microorganism research
On the applications section, it says that microorganisms have the potential to contribute to cancer treatment. Are there more recent academic journals that show and/or discuss this? I think it would be good to expand on this some more. --Jtan4 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do the internet search and bring forth the references / sources that you think are relevant. We'll assess it then. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Evaluate an article

Name of article: Microbiology (Micro) I decided to evaluate this article because I am currently taking microbiology and I find it very interesting.

Lead

Guiding questions: Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Yes, the Lead does include an introductory sentence that displays the overall scientific discipline of microbiology. There is a Contents table that clearly explains the structure of the article and direct links to those sections on the article. All the information presented in the article is relevant to the article followed with external resource references. The Lead gives an overall thesis of the article structure and focus.

Content

Guiding questions: Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Is the content up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The content is relevant to the scientific discipline of Microbiology. The content is up to date and all the content does belong. With the current pandemic, a link to virology is available to get a better background of viruses. This is very interesting as I knew about historic microbiologists such as Antonie van Leeuwenhoek and Robert Hooke as the pioneers in microbiology, but even before them there was Avicenna, who was over 600 years before Leeuwenhoek and Hooke. It does show underrepresented microbiologist pioneers.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions: Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article is neutral and only states facts that can be further researched. Claims seem to be well balanced and give credit to pioneers in the discipline. The article does not seem to persuade the reader, only gives known facts about the disincline of microbiology.

Sources and References

Guiding questions: Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Check a few links. Do they work?

The sources to all claims and facts in the article and the sources give more insight into what specific topic in the article is being mentioned. I did check some link to sources, and they did work and where the correct source.

Organization

Guiding questions: Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article is clear, concise and easy to follow, the outline of the article is very manageable with quick links to subsections in the disciple of microbiology.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The article uses good images that illustrate the pioneers of microbiology as well as laboratories and images of viruses and other microbes. The images are well captioned with links to other articles about the specific images.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions: What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discuss this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

The talks page is a little outdated in regard to talks among other editors, the most recent talk being done in September 2020 and states that this article is part of a WikiProject, but before that only talks in 2019 and 2017. Other conversations include ideas of ways to better structure the article. Wikipedia talks about microbiology much like the way I have learned in school with the exception of the ancient microbiology pioneers who I had never heard of before.

Overall impressions

It’s a great article that explains the discipline of microbiology. The history behind the development and its pioneers, the advancements in research and the number of subsections for further reading are among the article’s strengths. In my opinion the article is well-developed.

With the current pandemic going on around the world, is it possible to create a subsection under either microbiology or virology for anyone to look up facts of the newest/latest information developing on SARS-CoV-2?Apachvall (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Apachvall (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Tone and Balance of the Article
Tone and Balance: The tone of the article appears neutral and balanced. The article is careful to ensure that each section gets a chance to have a voice. I'd suggest more emphasis be placed on the branches of microbiology section. Understanding the branches within microbiology is critical to a full understanding of the discipline. Much of the article focuses on the history and applications, while skipping over key information. Ccd38148 (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ref [5]
"However, less than 1% of the microorganisms present in common environments can be cultured in isolation using current means". I cannot verify this infomation in this article (Ref [5]) Mongrangvebet (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)