User:Connorsisk18/sandbox

Response to Peer Review

Thanks so much for the help Sam. I will be sure to take your suggestions into account! You have a lot of good points that would better organise the article as well as making it much more legitimate.

-I will be changing the sentence in the first paragraph that states: "It became controversial when it was later revealed that laboratory and field testing (some of the latter using stimulants on non-consenting individuals) had become common." Into "It was later revealed that laboratory and field testing was on some non consenting individuals. This change is to keep an objective outlook on the information, and leave all personal opinions out of the article.

-I will also be moving the first paragraph of the article into the HISTORY section, and writing my own brief introduction to the article, leaving all the historical information under the HISTORY title. I feel this will better organise my article.

- I will be adding citations to the History section as well as for the information under the World War II title.

The History Citation:, World War II citation:

-I will also be moving my section on Japans biological Warfare to the article Japan during World War II. I feel the information better pertains to that article.

Peer Evaluation

I apologize for the late submission Connor.

It seems that the overall organization of the article is very choppy. The first part of Wiki articles (called the “lead section” in Wikipedia) should just be a brief description of the issue that is discussed but this article goes right into the history of the program. I would recommend creating a new, brief description of the program and move most of the first few paragraphs into the “History” section of the article.

The first few paragraphs are also missing citations, which is exceedingly important.

In the second paragraph, I would reword the sentence ‘It became controversial when it was later revealed that laboratory and field testing (some of the latter using simulants on non-consenting individuals) had been common.’ At minimum, the term, ‘It became controversial when it was later revealed that,’ should just be omitted. The sentence should be objective and just read something like “Laboratory and field testing was very common and included the use of stimulants on non-consenting individuals.” Furthermore, that sentence certainly needs a citation.

There could easily be an entire section added to the article under the “Controversy” or “Ethics” heading. I think that WikiProject: Ethics should rate the article as it would certainly fall in their scope.

Your content gap regarding Japan’s biological warfare would more appropriately be placed within the Wiki article Japan during World War II and I think it would be appropriate to add that article to the ‘See also’ section of this article as they are related in some ways. That section contains many articles that overlap with this one extensively.

Remember, we don’t want to really discuss feelings when writing Wikipedia articles as they should remain objective. Therefore, I would stick with just the facts. There are several missing apostrophes within your submission. Also, be sure to format your citations and your methods of embedding the citations so that if I click the source number within the article, it will bring me right to the source. In the training library, there is a great walkthrough on how to do that. You can find it at: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/sources.

I hope this helps!

~Samantha

Wiki Article Evaluation

Intro to Biology

Connor Sisk

The article I will be evaluating today focuses on deformities. It starts off with strong information, going into the many different causes of deformities, specifically humans. All the potential causes of deformites that the author lists are correct, but they immediatly jump to a content gap stating that most deformities cause the fetes or child to pass away. The author does not provide a scale of the different types and severities of deformities, only listing particularly fatal ones. Nor are there any statistics let alone sources to back the information. This could lead readers to beleive that all deformities are fatal, which they clearly are not. The author then goes into another content gap, this one more stretched than the other stating that deformities are sole reason for humans belief of mythological creatures. The author directly links the belief in mermaids to be caused by the symptoms of sirenomelia, which is a rare condition in which a fetes' legs are fused together. Although this deformity may have helped contribute to humans belief in the mythical creature, specifically mermaids it is surely not the only contribution. The article is cut short and ends there. It is obvious that the author is only using information to add to his opinion that deformities essentially caused humans throughout history to believe in mythology, and mythological creatures.

Article Evaluation: The Article I will be evaluating is United States Biological Weapons Program. United States biological weapons program

Citations for article:

The article doesn't go into the molecular level of the weapons.

https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/how-do-nuclear-weapons-work#.W6kGDkmouM8

The article doesn't go into the damage that the weapons cause, this is one of the sources I will use for the information:

https://www.britannica.com/technology/nuclear-weapon/The-effects-of-nuclear-weapons

The article also doesn't go into the ramifications of these types of weapons, I will go through what it takes to rebuild a place after the use of atomic power.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/japanese-recovery/

CONTENT GAPS in United States biological weapons program

Gap 1:

My article does not go into any detail at all on the bombing of Japan, let alone the effect it had on the country afterwards, as well as the generations to come.

Gap 2:

The article also does not go into the current state of biological weapons of other countries, as well as the US. Specifically North Korea, the US, Russia, and Pakistan.

ARTICLE CONTRIBUTION:

Japans use of Biological ware fare during World War Two

By the time World War Two was in full swing Japan had the most interest in using biological ware fare. Japans Air Force dropped massive amounts of ceramic bombs filled with bubonic plague infested fleas in Ningbo, China. These attacks would eventually lead to thousands of deaths years after the war would end. Newman, T. (2018, February 28). Biological weapons and bioterrorism: Past, present, and future. Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321030.php. In Japans relentless and indiscriminate research methods on biological warfare, they poisoned more than 1,000 Chinese village wells to study cholera and typhus outbreaks.These diseases are caused by bacteria that with todays technology could potentially weaponised.

The Future of Biological Warfare

With societies technological capabilities increasing rapidly, the future of biological warfare can seem quite detrimental and rather frightening. In the late 1980's a new technology called CRISPR-Cas9 was formed that would change our medical future forever. The technology allows scientists to genetically change genome codes, hence changing the genes function all together. It has been one of the biggest medical breakthroughs of modern times and has the potential to do many incredible things, but the risk for destructive purposes continues to rise as CRISPR-Cas9 technologies lower in cost to the general public. Using the genetic editing techniques it allows virus's to easily enter the Genome and start to replicate itself which raises red flags in defence programs around the world. Newman, T. (2018, February 28). Biological weapons and bioterrorism: Past, present, and future. Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321030.php, Vidyasagar, A. (2018, April 20). What Is CRISPR? Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/58790-crispr-explained.html.

Source List:

Newman, T. (2018, February 28). Biological weapons and bioterrorism: Past, present, and future. Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321030.php

Vidyasagar, A. (2018, April 20). What Is CRISPR? Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/58790-crispr-explained.html