User talk:Salehaminhas/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Everything in the article is relevant to the article content. Nothing was distracting in this article. There could be more information added about use of royal jelly as a dietary supplement. It is mentioned that some people believe that royal jelly has health benefits, but more information should be added about what these health benefits are, and why these claims are incorrect. More information can also be added about the legal action taken by the FDA against the supplements. More pictures can be added to improve the article.

The article is neutral and is not biased towards a particular position. The point about epigenetics may be a little overrepresented because it is not as directly relevant to the topic of the royal jelly. Many of the links for the citations do work, however the link for citation 10 does not work, and when I click on it says page not found. This citation should be updated. Each fact is not referenced with a source. The production section does not have a citation within it so I am not sure which of the sources that information is coming from. Additionally the last sentence of the third paragraph does not have a citation, so I am unsure where the information is coming from about allergic reactions resulting from royal jelly. The sources that are linked and that do work are neutral, and reliable sources. Many of them are journal articles.

The article is rated as a C-class article and is part of 3 wiki projects. It is part of the beekeeping project, alternative medicine and dietary supplements. There is a lot of input on the talk page about professional beekeeping. This is not a topic we have talked about in class. Salehaminhas (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)