Talk:Cell theory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MrFresh99 (article contribs).

Untitled

DATE OF DISCOVERY:

              Robert Hooke found cells when observing slices of cork under a microscope in 1665.

I plan to work on this article for the Wiki project for HSCI-3013 class (University of Oklahoma), If anyone else in this course is interested in working on this same article and wants to work together, please notify me. Thank you Mbar3466 (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The cell theory is ordered differently in bold, than on the very top of the page. I find this incredibly annoying, but that might just be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obliviator1 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing space

Please change "following Rudolf Virchow's conclusion thatcells arose by" to "following Rudolf Virchow's conclusion that cells arose by". (Note the missing space between "that" and "cells".) 81.234.209.7 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer review of your article "Cell Theory" by a fellow student of History of Science course

I thought your bla is well written and organized. I like that did a section on microscopes since it is pivotal to cell biology. Another things that really stood out for me was your use of pictures. I liked the fact that each section had a picture and unlike many other articles you chose pictures without fine print which makes it very difficult to read. I like that you went in depth with the history portion of the article. I think it will allow the reader to garner a better understanding of what they are reading and it helps paint a complete picture.

Only things that I can think that you might add is perhaps a little bit more in the introduction. I believe that it sounds good now but with a little bit more information it might help give the reader more of a foundation into the manner. The only other suggestion that I can think of is that you might include what some of the current research is that going on in the field. Lizzygabbie (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello U. The article overall is well made, and the length seems just right for the average visitor of Wikipedia, including me. Since I have no knowledge of biological or medical sciences, I believe that this article is definitely informative to the casual reader, and it is most likely informative to the professional or well versed readers who know about biology or medicine. The sections entitled "See also," "References," "Further Reading," and "External links" offer the reader strong reference sources and auxiliary or supplemental reading.

However, the layout of the whole article, including placement of the "Content" box and placement of photos, addition of missing references or citations, and an addition of an overall title could be added and improved. First off, a title "Cell Theory" should be at top and the "Contents" box should appear near the top of the article and to the left side of the section "Cell theory" and to the left side of the introductory paragraph (if this is possible). Second, the photo for a "prokaryote" (cell) would be better placed further down the article, somewhere under the introductory paragraph. So, the section entitled "Types of cells"could be moved to placed below the "History" section but above the "Modern interpretation" section and then include this "prokaryote" cell type and other cell types along with their photo(s). Lastly a bit of clean up of references formatting under the section "Modern interpretation" such as for "All known living things are made up of one or more cells(Wolfe 1972,p.5)" should be changed to have the reference format style of numerical footnotes. Also be sure to add links to or means to access references online in your reference citations and include any changes that other Wikipedians have suggested such as the one in the banner "This section needs additional citations for verification" under the "Modern interpretation" section.

These changes can improve the overall effectiveness and purpose of the article to readers, and would also improve the ease of readability and print-ability when a reader chooses to view the "Printable version" via the "Print/export" menu option. I will try to implement my suggestions into the article today. Petesimon2 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• What Hooke had thought were cells were actually just empty cell walls of plant tissues, but without ever thinking that cells could be alive, and also since his microscope had a very low magnification, making it difficult to observe the internal organization of the structure he had discovered, he did not think his "cellulae" could be alive.- run on • Leeuwenhoek probably also saw bacteria.- use another word than probably • In response to Moldenhower and TReviranus, expand on how they discovered cells were separable into individual units

I like how you have laid out the modern cell theory as well as a brief history of how it was developed. I believe you could elaborate on some areas, as a few remarks are underdeveloped. There are also some words that could be eliminated to make the sentences more concise and less like its an opinion. You had a lot of information which was good! The pictures were interesting a Alexnicolejones (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an informative article and is much more developed than it was previously. Here are a few ways I think your article could be improved. First, the aesthetics of the article could be better. The introduction should be directly to the right of the Contents box, not below it. Also, a picture near the top of the article would be visually pleasing. A few of your citations, such as the “(Becker,kleinsmith,hardin,p.1)” citation in the “History” section are not in the standard format and should be changed for uniformity. Also, some parenthetical explanations, such as “Bacteria are microscopic (very tiny)…” could be replaced by a link to another article that details that topic or word. In that example, you could link “microscopic” to the Wikipedia page “Microscopic scale” so if the reader would like further clarification or reading on the subject, he/she is a click away. This also improves the flow of the article. I also recommend reading through the article and making sure it flows nicely with no repeated information or run-on sentences that could be rewritten. Overall, this is a nice improvement over the original article and with some continued development, “Cell theory” can be very informative and well-put-together. --IndigoDeberry (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The main page shows diagrams of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells towards the end, and labels the prokaryotic cell as a 'plant cell' and the eukaryotic cell as an animal cell. This is rubbish - prokaryotic cells are bacteria and archaea (as the main article says), while both plants and animals have eukaryotic cells. Furthermore, the diagram for eukaryotic cells is very unclear and should be changed to a diagram that shows the complete cell. Winterpixie4 (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Viruses

Should this article include some mention of viruses, and how they are related to cell theory? John.D.Ward (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not in this article per se as such but as an extended theory. Viruses do play a very important role, no doubt about it, but I personally think that the article should primarily focus on cells; and on other issues secondarily. A link could be created there (or you could also bootstrap the viral parts within the article for now, and then lateron move it out to its own article.) 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

cancer cell as a typical cell

why to give a cancer cell as an example of a cell right from the beginning? --aruz (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a good start to the article

"In biology, cell theory is a scientific theory which describes the properties of cells." That is not a good beginning. The cell theory is actually that living organisms are made up of cells. The properties of cells are observed, they do not constitute a single theory. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The article has a few issues presently, especially missing citations to claims which I personally consider incorrect, such as that the cellular composition is always the same - this is not logical because different proteins may reside in any given cell at hand, depending on which parts of the genome is expressed. Might require a real overhaul as-is. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Cell theory is not a scientific theory, but a body of observations and the respective statement of fact. As such, the beginning of the article should be changed to make that clear (and also to make clear that "[t]he cell theory is actually that living organisms are made up of cells."). Even if a comprehensive overhaul may take more time, some smaller changes should have already been made. I don't have much experience with changing articles so I'm weary of doing it myself, but I'd like to encourage it to be done. If I don't see some changes (or a reason why they should not be made) in the next weeks/months I'll give it a try and make the changes I consider most pressing.Apeximius (talk) 4:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cell theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150603062810/http://newburyparkhighschool.net/barra/classes/bio_cp/handout_cell%20theory%20reading_students.doc to http://newburyparkhighschool.net/barra/classes/bio_cp/handout_cell%20theory%20reading_students.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2017

Change the wording from In biology, cell theory to In biology, the cell theory. 2604:2000:69D9:B800:30F3:11DF:B7F0:B950 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The sentence is grammatically correct as is. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

In 2. Eukaryotes [in Types of Cell]: The phrase "In addition, they possess organized chromosomes which store genetic material.[citation needed]" is false by imprecision. Prokaryotes possess organized chromosomes which store genetic material, although in a different way than Eukaryotes, which is the contrast proposed in this section of the article. I suggest this phrase to be removed (or improved with precision and citation). Bruno.weiss (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: "Eukaryotes: In addition, they possess organized chromosomes which store genetic material.... is false by imprecision. Prokaryotes possess organized chromosomes which store genetic material, although in a different way." Your explanation begins by mentioning prokaryotes, but as you indicated, the section we're discussing is eukaryotes. In any event, which is it that "they" is referring to? Please advise. Spintendo      03:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018

73.202.229.182 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Give me access.

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2019

In section 1 "Microscopes", the image should be "**A replica of** Anton van Leeuwenhoek's microscope..." KryptonOmega (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)