This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.
Just read this today. There was a lot of unsourced, essay like content here (somewhat promotional, like straight outta BIO), and for the most part this article was not in dialogue with the other closely related articles in WP. Went through and trimmed a lot, added sources and content and wikilinks to related articles. Hope it is seen as improvement but in any case I am happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Biotechnology is about formulating and inventing new types of biomaterials on different applications. This is the key of biotechnology commercialization. Others are for theoretical inputs and laboratory researches only. This should be mentioned in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I work in biotechnology and the term "biomaterials" is rarely used. And the article you want to link to is written poorly and says almost nothing. And you should never edit war - as per WP:BRD the first time you are reverted, you should open a Talk page discussion. Not after the third. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Biomaterials are bioactive in its applications, it is the beginning, not after laboratory research as you work at only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current lead is verbose and does not introduce the important applications of biotechnology. The proposed revision uses clearer language, corrects the use of two citation systems and provides well-documented uses of biotechnology, instead of general fields.
I am a new editor, and this is my first edit to a vital article. Thus, I would appreciate feedback as to whether my edit improves the article. Thank you! Denny1213 (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:LEAD. The lead just summarizes the article. It is not some overall thoughts on the field in general. The questions to ask are - does your draft lead summarize the whole article better than the current one? Does it give WP:WEIGHT according to the weight given to each topic discussed in the article? I don't think it does. Let me know what you think after reading LEAD. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I have been working on revising this article, and my (incomplete) revision can be found in my sandbox. I am still familiarizing myself with WP policies and am uncertain whether my revisions are productive. If you can, feel free to skim the work in my sandbox (beginning to History.Fermentation) and tell me if my revisions improve the article, before I devote more time to unnecessary revisions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Denny1213 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Your plan is not productive. I am not going to carefully read your new version and try to figure out how it is different from what is here, and skimming it is pointless. If you want to propose a different organization for this article, please propose the new structure here on Talk for discussion. If you want to introduce some new section please say so here and explain how much WP:WEIGHT you want to give it and how that makes sense in light of the whole article. if you have proposed copyedits to existing content, you should just go ahead and implement them, in small bites, and slowly, so that other editors can react to them individually, and you can get practical feedback so that future edits are better. If you dump a whole new article over this article, it will simply be reverted. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Enjoy the weekend! Denny1213 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)