User talk:3luke33/sandbox

Bacterial circadian rhythms

The introduction has a lot of jargon and could flow a little bit better. The arguments, quotes, and assumptions that disagree with the old opinions in the first paragraph have no citation and really need one, especially the quote. The old theories are negatively described as untested assumptions, dogmatic and flawed while those working on the new theories are described as pioneers, ground-breaking and persuasive, while this may be true the biased/persuasive wording shouldn’t be there. The article emphasizes the falseness of the assumption “why have a timer for a cycle that is longer than your lifetime?" more than 6 times, it only needs to be stated once maybe twice but this feels like it’s furthering the persuasive wording mentioned above. More information on WHY and HOW circadian rhythms are adaptively significant, and not simply THAT they are, I think would better help relay the significance or relevance of this phenomena. The first paragraph of “History” and “Adaptive significance” have a lot of information from only a single source, but otherwise the article is very well cited (though some citations are awkwardly placed) with 2 or 3 correct sources backing most facts. I personally think that Adaptive significance and Molecular mechanism sections should probably be placed above History as that’s probably the most relevant information to the general reader but others may disagree. All in all I think this article could use a bit of work but is fixable. --3luke33 (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)