User:Shelleybwallace/sandbox

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

Yes, everything is relevant. There was nothing in particular that distracted me. All of the topics and subheadings were relevant to the topic.

'''Is any information out of date?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

Yes. For the genetic testing, they need to add more up to date information and up to date researching that has been occurring with the flies. I feel as though they barely scratched the surface when it comes to genetic testing.

What else could be improved?

They definitely could have added more information in several of the topics as well as adding in the mutations. I didn't see coverage on the various mutations that one can see with the Fruit Flies.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' The article does seem neutral and very factual. It doesn't appear to have any heavy bias toward a particular position.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe when it comes to the viewpoint that Drosophila Melanogaster causes no threat (which is a common misconception in Australia,) they should included more information on how they are beneficial. I don't feel like any of the topics provide the amount of information that they could have given. From what we have already seen in lab and in articles about research, we know these animals are greatly used in several researches and experiments that give us vital information on how the genes of humans work. I believe it is very important to include this vital information within the wiki page instead of giving a basic or general overview the entire article. There was also a lot of information included about vision of Drosopholia melanogaster, which I found was not consistent with the rest of the article.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' Yes, the sources worked. Several of the sources supported the claims in the article as well. However, there were some sources that have some information that is not similar to that of the stated facts on the wiki page. Such as some including statistic.

'''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? Yes. The information came from mostly reliable, database articles where no bias was observed. However, some of the information did not come from the sources that were listed, as well as photos coming from a different website that was note cited previously.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? It is agreed that throughout the talk session this article is of high importance and should be regarded as so. However, it is not being represented accurately, as I mentioned above.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?''' The article is rated B class. This is used as part of the WikiProjects Insects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We speak about it in class in more of a teaching and learning and experimental manner. Whereas on the wikipedia page, we are using research, information, and constantly updating it depending on research updates that are constantly changing.