User talk:645gg/sandbox

Article Evaluation

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

For the Botany article it seemed really unorganized and hard to read. Also, it feels as though the article for Botany was more about the history of Botany rather than about the discipline itself. Also, the whole section on plant biochemistry is unnecessary. Plant biochemistry does have some things to do with botany but it is a bit off topic as to what the article should be focusing on. The section even goes into the details on Calvin Cycle which is way too much info for an article about botany. Also, there are wiki pages dedicated already to explaining the Calvin cycle in plants and so this is regurgitated information. this isn't the only section that feels overdone or out of place. Plant evolution, plant hormones, genetics, these are all sections that should be their own Wikipedia pages.

For the physiology article I found somewhat of the same problems. First of all I think that having a section dedicated to "Aims" in plant physiology be right after the introduction is really out of place, this should be the last thing to talk about in the article page. Or maybe instead of calling it Aims call it Overview, because by calling it Aims you are implying that the section will be discussing things about the future. Also, I feel as though this section should have had more in its biochemistry section not the Botany article, considering that it is specifically talking about the physiology of the plants not the discipline itself.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? plant I found it confusing that the plant physiology article calls itself a sub discipline of botany when the term isn't mentioned in the botany article. Also, I think it would be wise if the botany article didn't list the subdivisions that it claims are associated with botany, because I am sure there are many other plant specialists out there who would call themselves botanists and who are not listed on there.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think that there are overrespresented viewpoints, such as again with the botanist article, and the plant physiology one seems underrepresented. The botany article goes way too much into detail for plant biochemistry, and the plant physiology article doe not go into enough detail.

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

The citation links work, however I noticed that for the plant physiology article, the whole thing is missing the corresponding numbers to its references down below for citations. So, people will not know which source material was referenced where in 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?

I don't see any articles that are bias noted for the references. Also, I clicked on a link for plant.net down below that was a citation for plant physiology and the link is broken. Some of the sources do not seem like direct resources or primary, they seem very third party in the plant physiology article.

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

For plant physiology it says that one of the leading journals for plant physiology is one written in 1926, so I think this information could use an update. Also, for the botany article in the systematic section at the bottom, they reference and talk about studies done in 1988, there must be updated studies by now and more to add to this section when it comes to present day systematic botany for plants. There is also a figure in this section of a very vague and broad tree, that I'm sure can be replaced by sa more detailed and informational one. This figure does not do systematic botany justice in what we have discovered today about plant evolution and genetics.

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

Wikipedia definitely talks about plants as being separate from animals. It does not mention their abilities to sense things like touch, hear or taste and smell. It talks about plants function, but it doesn't go into the level of detail that we go into in class. There was little to no mention of phytochromes, phototropins, or photoreceptors. It does not use plant vocabulary. And the issue of plants and their relation to animals isn't talked about at all or isn't even a section in either of the articles. The plant physiology article definitely should have talked about plant senses, they are after all a part of the plant and mechanisms that it has developed over time to ensure its survival. 645gg (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to evaluation
Your evaluation is very thorough. Can you think of specific things you would change if you were editing either of the pages. Did you note which class they were and look at their talk pages? You wrote your evaluation on your own talk page instead of the sandbox itself, so make sure you know the difference. Jmmcabee (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee