User:Immcarle62/sandbox

Article Evaluation

•	Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? I think everything present in this article relevant to the topic, and nothing was distracting for me.

•	Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a position? I think this is a neutral article and do not see any claims or frames that are heavily biased towards either position.

•	Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As far as I can tell I do not think that there any viewpoints that are over or under represented.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Most of the links do work however there are a few that do not which means they need to be updated. For those that do work they seem to support the claims in the article that they are being cited for.

•	 Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? I think there are some points that should be cited by a reliable source, most of the information comes from outside research articles. The sources seem to be neutral, and very much evidence based. I do not think it seems biased.

•	Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Maybe we haven't gotten to this topic yet. What do you need to read to be able to understand this article? Most of the cited articles are from early 2000s, so I think it would be good to look at the current information we have on MHC class IIs. I feel like the article could benefit from newer and updated information. I know we touched a bit on MHC II but I am going to read the section in the book on these molecules so that I can better understand the information already present on the page and find what should be added or re-worked.

•	 Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are not many conversations going on behind the scenes on this page, the first two were from 2010 pertaining to where these cells are found and clarifying a point the original poster made. The most recent comment was made this month from someone who worked on modifying some of the external links. In general, these were more of general notices to other editors rather than a discussion.

•	How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is part of WikiProject Genetics as well as WkiProejct Molecular and Cell Biology. It is rated as C-class on the both the projects’ quality scales and has been rated of mid importance on both projects’ importance scales.

•	How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Maybe we haven't gotten to this topic yet. What do you need to read to be able to understand this article?

Because we haven’t discussed this topic much in class I am not sure if it is different from how Wikipedia discusses it. To better understand this topic, I am going to need to read the section in the book on the MHC class II molecules and do further research outside of the book.

Plans to add: A section on MHC II deficiency, and how that effects the immune process. I also feel like it would be interesting to add a section on the presence of overabundant MHC II, which would also allow readers to learn about how that interacts with other parts of the immune response, and results as an autoimmune disorder.