User:LacJig/sandbox

Reference & Link
This is my reference

This is my link about Tomato Soup

Article Evaluation
Article Link: Cell biology


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

The article was related to Cell Biology, and what Cell Biologists Study, However the use of greek, and list of famous cell biologists, distracted from explaining the point on hand.


 * Is any information out of date?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

The article contained the history of Cell Biology, however it did not contain what Cell Biologists are doing with the technology of today. Missing information would be amount of citations needed for a high quality page, and information on the organelles of a cell which are very important to cell biological processes. In addition, very little is discussed on cell structure, which makes it a vague and ambiguous paragraph.


 * What else could be improved?

The length of the article is by far inferior. This article should contain vast amounts of information in reality, however the article itself only scratches the surface as to what Cell Biology is.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article appears neutral in presenting the facts, However, states that "scientists have struggled to decide if viruses are alive or not", without citing any particular source, which implies that it is their opinion, not fact.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Over representation on the Growth and Development section, and the Chemical and Molecular environment. In addition, almost no representation of the "Other cellular processes which have only been listed, not explained.


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

There is very few citations. Links do work, including a large amount of text citations, which support the claims of the article.


 * 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?

No, there are many places in which the article should have appropriate citations, which are not applied. It is unknown where this information comes from, and most of the claims that are not cited, are opinion based, and biased.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There is a talk section of the Electron Micrograph image, stating that is doesn't say what part of the cell it is.

There is a talk section on where to get added information that is not listed in this page.In addition, someone wants to redirect Cytology to Cell Biology.

There is a talk section who states "This needs some serious fleshing out", which related to how stated above, I claimed that the article only scratches the surface of what Cell Biology really is.

There is a talk section on Embryology, which asks if they would consider it a positive vote.

There is a talk section on Cell Physiology, stating that the article is "fairly worthless" and that there should be a redirect here.

There is a talk section of External Links, asking to add an interactive blog site from Harvard to the list.

There is a talk section titled "This article is unsalvageable" stating that statements made in the article were "factually inaccurate", organizational flaws, not included and very related topics, such as protein synthesis.The article is too opinion based, in addition to saying "The article is beyond needing only referencing to improve it."

There is a talk section titled "Copyright problem removed" stating that they were not given permission to use a source, and it was "removed due to legal reasons, and that Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing."

There are a few more talk sections relating to other previously stated talk sections


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

It is rated as a C-class in the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology, and is Top-importance.

It is rated as a C-class on the WikiProject Biology and is High-importance


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

The article is very poorly organized, with very little citations, figures, and hyperlinks. In addition, the article only scratches the surface of what Cell Biology is, and is very short, with very little factual information, and many instances of opinion, biased-based information.