In my critique, I am referring to the article titled “Membrane nanotube.” I came across this article while I was exploring “Category: cell biology stubs .”
The article has one section plus a section on references. The language is understandable, the concepts clearly identified (although in one section), and the tone is neutral. This article has no ‘content’ section, maybe because some of the parts need expansion. Also, other parts could be added or mentioned. For example, the third paragraph talks about the different functions such as intracellular communication and HIV related concepts“Membrane nanotube.”, however I think they could be expanded on. For instance, more academic journals could be read, or reliable books could be used to explain more. In the talk page, One user has given un update about a correction and asks for more expansion on the article (last comment). In this comment, there is also a mention of the article’s relatedness to cell biology.
There is one diagram on this page, but I think with the expansion of the fields, it could use more figures. The coverage of the article is neutral and multiple sources have been cited (13 total) and from reliable sources such academic journals from places such as The Journal of Immunology. There is coverage of a number of related concepts, and in the talk page, one user has added text from another Wikipedia page about cytoneme and says maybe it could be used in this page. In the talk page, I see that some users are commenting on the sources (such as time of publication) and another user wrote a story about how similar nanotubes were first discovered and when the research was published. Reddclayy (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)