User talk:Stbox4
Chlorosome Article Critique
[edit]The most pressing concern I mean to raise regarding the Wikipedia article on Chlorosomes is the lack of reference material provided. Some sections of the article, like the Structure section and the alternative energy section, are devoid of citations. The Introduction provides an important overview of the purpose and distribution of these structures, but only provides one reference. Further issues arise as the citation link only brings you to a database of scientific articles, not the actual paper.
Plagiarism also seems to be a prevalent issue in this article, as the majority fails the most basic checks. Granted, some of the plagiarism is likely only showing up because other sites have plagiarised from Wikipedia giving a false positive. However, a significant portion seems to be taken directly from numerous scholarly articles.
While most of the article is relevant and succinct, parts of the Organization section read more like a Procedures or Methods page of a lab write-up than an article on Chlorosomes. The writer of this wiki page explains the procedures, step by step, that the referenced researcher took while discovering the organization of chlorosomes. This is useless to the average reader and may only confuse them. These procedures could be left in the originally cited papers, where they could be examined if necessary. Aside from these concerns, there does not appear to be bias present in this article at all. The talk page is somewhat stagnant with only one comment, unanswered, dating to 2008.
Stbox4 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Reflection
[edit]Unsurprisingly, I have learned that even a seemingly immaculate article can have many issues if examined with only a modicum of vigour. When I first read this article I thought it was excellent, and it didn't confuse me at all. That was before I realized I read the article in the same way I and many others read them: skimming it. With that method, you miss the fact that much of the article isn't cited, or is actually written in a fairly confusing way. Kind of a wakeup call to stop putting so little effort into reading an article, whether it be from Wikipedia or anywhere else. Stbox4 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Stbox4, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Stbox4! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Stbox4, 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.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
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)