User talk:Kkellogg123/sandbox

The caption on one of the pictures was distracting from the information. Something could be added about the different mutations fruit flies have The sections at the end are very short. More information and sources could be incorporated to improve these sections. I don't see any bias in this article. The scientific aspect is what is talked about the most without talking about wild fruit flies. The links work and it seems the information cited is from the sources. There is one section that is does not have enough sources Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page. They are talking about adding different sections and editing other sections. It is listed as a delisted good article. It talks about other subjects that we did not talk about in class.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims 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?
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?