User talk:128.189.132.85/sandbox

While the article is full of lots of high quality and relevant information there are several clear flaws. The entire introduction is uncited, even though specific facts like those in paragraph 2 are listed. Under the second subheading “History...” there is considerable opinion and reads much more like an essay trying to draw conclusions and inferences than an objective piece. The heading “Adaptive Significance” suffers the same subjectivity and forgoes cited fact for questions and opinion. The Wikipedia article on general circadian rhythms is much more objective and should have been used as a model. Experiments mentioned under this heading, like those with cyanobacteria, are very specific yet have no form of citation or credit to whomever carried out the experiments themselves. Under the heading “visualizing the Clockwork’s...” the first sentence is a very bold, absolute statement talking about a one of a kind protein, yet offers no citation for the claim. Further under that subheading is direct copy and paste plagiarism from a cited article, where the sentence regarding donut shape is taken directly from the journal. The information in the article covered the topic from a variety of angles and properly linked other articles for further reading. Whenever citations were used, they were appropriate and reputable academic journal articles that could all be easily found by their reference at the end of the article. The talk page offers a very brief concern that the citations and references were not properly hyperlinked, but that problem has since been rectified.Aidan Canil (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)