User:BrittneyLambert/sandbox

Botany
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

There are over 200 reliable, relevant sources throughout this article.

''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''

The layout of the article is extremely logical with headings and subheadings that are relevant to the topic and equally covered.

''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''

There were no obvious biases, but there may have been subtle instances of bias. For example, in the Genetics section of the article, there is a statement “What Mendel learned from studying plants has had far reaching benefits outside of botany.” While this statement is almost certainly true, it could be worded in a way that is less favorable to Mendel.

''Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?''

They all appear to be neutral, but there is potential that there were some sources that may not have been as appropriate as others. With a list of 206 references, it is impossible to look into every single one for this assignment, but overall, they seemed neutral.

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?

Each section is fully developed and the important things about botany are highlighted.

''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?''

The links work correctly with no close paraphrasing or direct quotes for the ones that I looked at.

''Check the talk page. What kinds of discussion is going on in the Wikipedia community about how to represent this topic?''

The talk page included the rating of the article, which was “GA” for Good Article. This is a good sign that the information on the page is up to date and has been edited and looked at by many users with appropriate knowledge. There was a lot of talk about modifying external links and a mention about the plant scientists section and the work that these scientists do.

Cyanobacteria
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

There are 17 places in the article where it is noted that there are citations needed, and there is an entire section (Morphology) that needs citations.

''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''

Everything that is in the article is definitely relevant to the topic, but it seems that certain sections could be expanded upon with further research and information. For example, the Earth history section of the article is not nearly as developed as some of the other sections, but it seems that this should be higher importance.

''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''

There was a long quote in the ecology section of the article talking about how cyanobacteria are potentially the most successful group of microorganisms on earth, and while this may be true, it is also highly in favor of the organism.

''Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?''

The sources seem to be valid and unbiased, but it is definitely difficult to tell without looking into every source independently. For example, the citation from the long quote in the article appeared on first glance to be a reliable source but there was obvious favoritism in the source.

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?

There are no viewpoint that are overrepresented or underrepresented other than what was previously mentioned about the long quote in the ecology section of the article. The importance of cyanobacteria may not be exaggerated, but it appears that there is at least some opinion piece to the statement.

''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?''

The links to the citations that I checked worked, and there was no close paraphrasing or plagiarism from these sources.

''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?''

All of the headings and subheadings seem relevant and inclusive of all that may be necessary for cyanobacteria, but as I am not an expert in this field, it is possible that there is important information missing. There were multiple sources from the 1960’s and 1970’s and there was even one from 1959, but overall, most of the sources were from more recent times.

''Check the talk page. What kinds of discussion is going on in the Wikipedia community about how to represent this topic?''

This talk page was much more active than the page on botany. There are a lot of different things going on, including discussions about small things like structure and grammar to discussions about larger things like content and quality. This article also had a C-rating, meaning that it is an intermediate article with room for improvement.

Pinophyta
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

There are three places in the article where there are citations needed.

''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''

Every heading and subheading in the article was extremely relevant and seemed important for a full discussion of Pinophyta. There was no extraneous information that did not seem to fit in.

''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''

The article does seem neutral in general. There are statements that highlight the importance of pinophyta for our earth, but nothing that is heavily in favor.

''Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?''

The sources appear to be neutral and unbiased.

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?

No, everything in the article seems to be equally distributed based on importance and amount of information available.

''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?''

The links to the ones that I checked worked and there was no close paraphrasing or plagiarism.

''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?''

There were a lot of sources from the 1960’s that may have been out of date, but there are also sources that are more current.

''Check the talk page. What kinds of discussion is going on in the Wikipedia community about how to represent this topic?''

There was some talk about the under-representation of invasive species, and that author responded saying they were unable to find relevant research to expand on that section. The article also has a B rating, making it slightly better than the article on cyanobacteria but still not as good as it needs to be.