User talk:Amaldo8263/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Everything was relevant to the topic; however, the article could have benefited by including a picture diagramming how the cells get sorted based on their various affinities. This article could have been improved by including more recent references. There were only five references ranging from 1996 to 2007, which I don't believe to be strong up to date evidence to support the latest research on this topic. I also would have liked to have seen more on the application of DAH. Overall, the article was easy to understand and follow even for people with little to no science background. The tone of the article was neutral and did not present opinions or facts to persuade the reader to be directed to think one way. The references were peer reviewed articles that supported the main article. The majority of the references however were by the same author. I would have included more peer reviewed articles that were written by different authors to ensure well rounded supporting evidence. Some of the comments in the talk page have been mixed between wanting to merge the topic of cell adhesion and differential adhesion hypothesis. There is mixed comments on this because some people are saying that DAH feels out of place when included in the article on cell adhesion and others are saying that most people wouldn't normally come across the topic of differential adhesion hypothesis if they haven't already heard of it. It is part of three WikiProjects and is rated low to mid importance and Start-class. Wikipedia differs in how we have talked about in class by going more in depth on the background and the applications of it, but overall did a good job on explaining the general idea of the topic on simplest terms.