Talk:Bilophila wadsworthia

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bilophila wadsworthia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Microbiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Bilophila wadsworthia be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Bilophila wadsworthia.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Due to the rapid pace of medical research please note that references in this article that are over ten years old are likely to be removed and/or replaced with more recent references.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 16 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yangbr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review from Victor

I like the skeleton of your wiki page. I think it will probably be best to omit adding a template, because that requires a bit of wiki-editing that maybe more experienced wikipedia editors can help you out with. Do you have another bacteria wikipedia page that you're trying to adapt from? Having one would be very good.

Better to rename "Discovery" to "History." There are not many recommendations to make. Once you fill out your sections more, I'll revisit this :) --VictorZzzzz (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from Carolyn

Great structure and headings outlined for your sections- allows the reader to clearly and easily locate information. The summary box at the top indicating kingdom, phylum, order, etc. provides a nice overview of bacteria's essential classification. Good depth to each section, clearly distinguishing what separates and makes this bacteria unique from the many other species out there. One thing I would suggest overall is to possibly define some terms- I had to look up what some terms were, but good use of hyperlinks. The most important thing that the author could do would be to continue probing for more research and possibly include a section on current research (if any). Could also possibly think of a different way to split up Biology section such as possibly a new section for culture growth? Nice work though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carokim (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]