User talk:70.79.152.100/sandbox

Assignment 1 Critique Wikipedia Article Heterotroph

After analyzing the Wikipedia page on heterotrophs I found all references that are included to be appropriate. That being said the portion of the Wikipedia article outlining the definition of a chemoautotroph or a photoautotroph should be cited. The material in the article is relevant to the article topic and there is no information that I thought did not belong in a Wikipedia article. Due to it being difficult to have a position on heterotrophy there were no claims or statements that were biased towards any certain position as the majority of the page is made up of definition. There are no points that are over-represented, but I do find that due to the lack of organization in the page some topics feel as though they are under-represented. I would have designed the page to have the definition of heterotrophs at the start along with the history of the term, then outline the difference between heterotrophy and autotrophy, then I would outline the difference between photoheterotrophs and chemoheterotrophs. There are some definitions that need to be clarified and held consistent throughout the entire article, specifically that heterotrophy and autotrophy outline where the organism receives its carbon from, while "chemo" or photo" outlines where the organism receives energy to complete cellular processes from. On the talk page, I found a comment regarding the flow chart on the page and it was found to be inaccurate and not a good resource.

Grobbin5 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)