User:Cjs22/sandbox

Use my second sandbox for peer review (I'm drafting in here)
User:Cjs22/sandbox2

= Article Evaluation =

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
Everything in the article is relevant to the topic, and there is nothing that distracted me.

Is any information out of date? Is any information missing that could be added?
There is no information that is out of date. Some information could be added regarding the clinical diseases associated with the IGF-1 hormone. For example, more information may be able to be found regarding the dysfunction of the IGF-1 pathway in various types of cancer.

What else can be improved?
The article should have more sources regarding the regulation of IGF-1 levels through diet. There is 2012 source about the horizon documentary Eat, Fast, & Live Longer, but more sources may be added.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The article does not appear to be biased, it simply explains the function of IGF-1.

Are there any viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
The article seems to be fairly balanced in its explanations.

Evaluating Sources
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims for the article?

There needs to be a medical source for the claim about the discrepancy for the potency of IGF-1 in activating insulin receptors and its potency in vivo during hypoglycemia.

Medical references are needed for the list of binding proteins that interact with IGF-1.

Medical reference needed for recombinant protein.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
Medical references are required for the above claims.

What kind of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
There is talk about the effects of of high IGF-1 levels on longevity. One user mentions hearing the low levels of IGF-1 levels in invertebrates.

How is the article rated? Is it part of any wiki projects?
The article is rated as "start" for both the Molecular and Cell Biology and Cell Signaling wiki projects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
The information we learned in class corroborates the information from the article.

= Exercise: Choose your article =

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Yes.

Is the article written neutrally?
Yes.

Does each claim have a citation?
"The pituitary is supplied by a low pressure portal venous system" needs a claim. A medical citation is needed.

The statement in the "causes" section requires a citation.

Are the citations reliable?
The citations that are present are reliable.

Resources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15237929

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Yes

Is the article written neutrally?
Yes.

Does each claim have a citation?
The single claim has a citation.

Are the citations reliable?
The single citation is reliable, PMID is include.

Resources:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/0002-9343(81)90132-7/fulltext

Neuroendocrine Causes of Amenorrhea—An Update - Review by Fourman et al. 2015
Main points of the article:


 * Specificity about the restriction of blood flow to the anterior pituitary gland seen during Sheehan's Syndrome.
 * Ischemic necrosis causes loss of blood supply to this tissue, resulting in hypopituitarism. This is what Sheehan's Syndrome is.
 * The Review includes demographic studies about the prevalence of the disease in first world countries.