User:Bike2022/sandbox

A null cell, or more commonly used, natural killer cells, are a large granular lymphocyte that develops inside bone marrow which attacks pathogens and abnormal cells. The term null cell is old and has been taken over by the term natural killer cells or killer cells.There are common characteristics in which null cells lack to be categorized into surface markers in mature B-cells and T-cells. Even though they are large granular lymphocytes, they are still relatively small, chromophobic cells. When the term chromophobic is used, it means when viewing under a light microscope, these cells appear to be small. While they do not contain known anterior pituitary hormones in their cytoplasm, they do contain secretory granules that may contain various properties like; hormone pieces, forerunners, or biologically inactive substances. The cells are seen as a representation of resting cells, precursors of various cell types, or an unknown cell type. Null cells account for a small proportion of the lymphocytes found in an organism. As mentioned before, they are quick to act in the presence of pathogens like viruses and attack viral-infected or tumor cells, more specifically non-MHC-restricted manner. In subpopulations of mononuclear cells in aging humans, the number of null cells has increased over time. Recently, using developed monoclonal antibodies against natural killer cells combined with T-Cell markers in two-wavelength immunofluorescence, 13 subpopulations of mononuclear cells were defined and compared in two groupings of individuals. What was found was that in the elderly (75-84) age group was an increase in the null cell population because of an increase in natural killer cells. More specifically, the CD16+ and Leu7+ subsets of natural killer cells.

Additionally, CD8+ suppressor and cytotoxic cells were found to be decreased. Changes are believed to be due to defects involved with an aging immune system and can be used as a representation of a healthy immune system in the healthy aged group and can be linked to survival. The values that were uncovered can be implemented in monitoring efforts to rebuild defective immune systems due to aging. Null cells have also been found in some cancers. In the pituitary gland, null cell adenomas have been found. Null cells have also been identified in the nontumorous adenohypophysis, suggesting that null cell adenomas are derived from preexisting non-neoplastic null cells. That being said, when it comes to non-functioning tumors and adenomas, null cells comprise around 20% of them. {| class="wikitable"

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Throughout my evaluation of this article, I found that the lead section was not complete and could use a lot more work. There was not much to this article so a brief description of the article's major sections was absent. Apart from that, the lead section was precise in what it did cover on null cells or killer cells. The description of their functionality and purpose is clear.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * 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?

Yes, the article does relate to the topic and keeps it simple, easy to understand, and summarized. However, there is not enough detail on the subject. It is coming up on a year since it was last edited and seems as if not much was done to it. I personally would change the structure of the way the content is delivered in the article because I feel it would have a better educational impact this way. The article does not seem biased in any way so I don't see any equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article is professional and neutral in what it does provide. The article is not written in a biased way whatsoever, rather it uses credible sources which are proving science and speak factually.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * 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?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The links do work, however, there are only 3 references that are used which I think is too few. One of the sources is a dictionary which is not a reliable site, however, it is a reliable definition to have. The sources are current. There are better sources available on PubMed which are peer-reviewed, fro example, PubMed is a great source to use.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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 writing is clear and professionally executed, but there is not much to the article so more needs to be done. It is concise, clear, and easy to read. There are no grammatical errors, just some interchangeable terms which are fine depending on who you are and your background. There are no major points that break the article down into sections, which oi think is important for this topic.

Images and Media

 * 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?

There are no images or media posted for this article.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * 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 discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

There is no talk going on for this article and no additional references offered.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article's overall impression is it needs a lot of work put into it like more detail, and more peer-reviewed references. Some strengths this article includes are how concise it is and summarized it is, however, there does need to be more detail ad broken into major sections. I would asses the completeness by looking at its organization and the references which were used. Currently, this article is underdeveloped and has much room for improvement.
 * }