User talk:Jesszha

What I learned from Evalution of "Bacterial circadian rhythms"
I learned how to thoroughly explore the reference section to get further information. I also learned how much work it takes to take to take so much information and research - which is usually biased because it is trying to show one thing over another - and compress it into a concise, neutral, and easily understandable format. Jesszha (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Jessica Zhang

Welcome!
Hello, Jesszha, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2: Evaluation of Wikipedia Article Selection (Cellulosome)
Link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosome

Evaluation:

At a glance, cellulosome seems like a relatively research area. A quick search on google scholar finds a plethora of research and textbook articles covering topics varying from the structure and functionality of the protein complex, to its specific appearance on a variety of different microorganism species. These relatively credible sources support the notability of the topic. A couple examples include a paper of the cellulosome organelle discovered on Clostridium themocellum from ResearchGate that has over 150 citations and was presented at the Biotechnology and Bioengineering Symposium in 1983. A similar more elaborative article was printed in the Journal of Bacteriology. The same journal also published an article about specific endocellulase component in 1997.

Despite the wealth of information, however, this article only cites seven of them. As such, the article is prime for improvement in a variety of places. The structure of the Wikipedia article is minimal – it only has two text bodies: the main introduction and the ‘History of discovery.’ The amount of information in the introduction, which is four paragraphs, is much too dense for what the introduction is supposed to be (concise and an easy to read summary). Further evidence of the bloated introduction is that the last paragraph seems to have a sub-label ‘Applications:…’ which suggests that the text within that paragraph actually should belong in a separate section within the contents. In addition, the ‘History of discovery’ section includes information not only on the research discovery but also its variations and the bacteria that it appears in. As such, the section has potential to be separated and the subsequent subsections can be further elaborated and supported by research articles. In terms of the content that is already written, although the article doesn’t make any personal opinions, there are several sentences that make factual claims without a citation.

This Wikipedia article requires some extent of reconstruction. Information that is only briefly mentioned but is out of place in the introduction needs to be moved to separate sections and further developed with research from journal articles. I propose the development of sections like ‘Complex Structure’, ‘Appearance in Bacteria’, ‘Bacterial Significance’, ‘Applications and Further Impacts,’…etc. These will be further developed after more research. Jesszha (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Jessica Zhang

Your contributed article, Jesszha/sandbox


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Jesszha/sandbox. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Cellulosome. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Cellulosome. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving to mainspace
Hi Jesszha, I moved your work back to your sandbox. Please follow the instructions provided for merging your additions into an existing article. Simply moving your sandbox is not the way to do this. See the instructions at the top of page 13 in the Editing Wikipedia brochure, or re-visit this training slide. Thanks. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)