User:Racrz8/sandbox

Sandra Magnus
Sandra Magnus
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything seems relevant. Each flight mission is described, importance of her contributions are explained, it's mentioned what she's up to now


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article focuses on her space flights and time with NASA. Nothing is biased, very neutral.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think her NASA and engineering contributions are very well represented but nothing of her personal or early life is really talked about.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The references in the article seem reputable, they're mostly NASA and similar organizations. NASA is a very reputable organization. The links in the article are good and go to where they should. Maybe a link to her thesis would be interesting to add? The AIAA link in references goes to page not found.


 * 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?


 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The AIAA link was broken, maybe she doesn't work there anymore?


 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

conversations are about links working/not working/being updated

[need to make sure your suggested additions are substantive more than citations]
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Bioactive Glass
Bioactive glass


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything seems relative. The lack of content in some sections was a little distracting, seems like there wasn't much effort put into those parts.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is pretty neutral. However due to the lack of content in the history section, all contributors to bioactive glass are not represented. I don't see any claims or such that may point to a heavily biased opinion


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

History and medical uses are very underrepresented compared to compositions


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Links work! However some go to sites where you have to purchase chapters of a book or report so I couldn't verify those. The sources I checked support the claims they reference. Kinda cool seeing Dr. Hilmas on some of those sources!


 * 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?

The facts are referenced with journal articles from reliable sources (i.e. pubmed), the sources are neutral.


 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

needs a lot of info in the medical uses and history page. could talk about mo-sci and the work done at s&t


 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

no conversations yet!


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

part of wikiprojects in medicine, glass, and technology. Bioactive glass is a relatively new discovery which changed the way wounds could be healed


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

haven't talked about it in class

Things to Add
adding to history section using citation 7 on the bioactive glass page

Through use of a phase diagram, Hench chose a composition of 45%, 24.5% , 24.5% , and 6%  to allow for a large amount of  and some  in a  matrix. The glass was batched, melted, and cast into small rectangular implants to be inserted into the femoral bone of rats for six weeks as developed by Dr. Ted Greenlee of the University of Florida. After the six weeks were up, Dr. Greenlee reported "These ceramic implants will not come out of the bone. They are bonded in place. I can push on them, I can shove them, I can hit them and they do not move. The controls easily slide out." These findings were the basis of the first paper on 45S5 bioactive glass in 1971 which summarized that in vitro experiments in a calcium and phosphate ion deficient solution showed a developed layer of hydroxyapatite similar to the observed hydroxyapatite later in vivo by Dr. Greenlee.

changing the first sentence of the 45S5 composition paragraph

The composition was originally selected because of being roughly eutectic, which makes the glass easily melted. Racrz8 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

S53P4 bioactive glass was first used in a clinical setting as an alternative to bone or cartilage drafts in facial reconstruction surgery. The use of artificial materials as bone prosthesis had the advantage of being much more versatile than traditional autotransplants, as well as having fewer post-operation side effects.

In patients with chronic bone or marrow infections, S53P4 bioglass was almost entirely successful in multiple studies conducted by Romano et al, Lindfors et al, and McAndrew et al due to its antimicrobial properties.

PaladinSandalphon (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC) (forgot to add this earlier)

Hydroxyapatite was chosen as a primary component of Bioglass due to its abundance as a naturally-occurring mineral in bones and teeth. Due to its similarity in composition to bone, the presence of this synthetic material would catalyze natural bone repair through the expression of growth factor genes in nearby cells.

PaladinSandalphon (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

In a study to test the antibacterial properties against Streptococcus sanguinis, Streptococcus mutans, and Actinomyces viscosus, Bioglass was found to significantly inhibit the bacteria's ability to survive and replicate in several different medias; these antibacterial properties were accredited to the high pH of the solutions containing Bioglass particles.

PaladinSandalphon (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Bioactive glasses were the result of efforts to create prosthetic materials that were durable enough to withstand the conditions inside the body and discovery of materials that fostered a regenerative response when implanted in the bones. Professor Hench of the University of Florida found that a mixture of silica and minerals that naturally occur in the bones, such as calcium or hydroxyapatite, would express genes responsible for bone growth in nearby cells when implanted at the site of a fracture. PaladinSandalphon (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

maybe consider moving sections of the page around to make more sense?
 * We could do: history, structure, composition, mechanism of activity, then medical uses?

Racrz8 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

animal test trials could be added to the history section maybe

Scientists in Amsterdam, Holland took cubes of bioactive glass and implanted them into the tibias of guinea pigs in 1986. After 8, 12, or 16 weeks of implantation, the guinea pigs were euthanized and their tibias were harvested. The implants and tibias were then subjected to a shear strength test to determine the mechanical properties of the implant to bone boundary, where it was found to have a shear strength of 5 N/$$mm^2$$. Electron microscopy showed the ceramic implants had bone remnants firmly adhered to them. Further optical microscopy revealed bone cell and blood vessel growth within the area of the implant which was proof of biocompatibility between the bone and implant.

Bioactive glass was the first example of a material that can bond to a living tissue without being toxic or degraded.

45S5 microspheres for the medical uses section

Bioactive glass microspheres can be fabricated to be porous which then can encapsulate drugs and allow for an increase of ion release due to the ability to form a good drug coating.

Racrz8 (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Things to consider changing
Pictures and diagrams could be a good addition, but we'd need to find the perfect picture. It would need to be something simple and not overly complicated so the lay person could understand it. Linking medical words to their respective pages would also be a good idea to help others understand our ideas. I however do not think we should reduce the capacity of words, i.e. in vivo and in vitro, because it would take away from the scientific side of the paper. I think if we add links to their definitions it should help. Racrz8 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely add more to the history section like crook47 suggested. More content would help develop that section more. Racrz8 (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed by Demxr2 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Demxr2 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

1) What does the article do well?   I think you do a good job of describing the history and uses and benefits of bioactive glass. 2) What changes would you suggest? I would suggest adding an image or diagram to show what the phase diagram referenced in the first section is exactly. I understand that you aren't trying to teach chemistry but a small bit of background knowledge would help with the overall understanding of the topic. 3) What is the most important thing the author could do?   I think the most important thing would be to provide clarification on the chemistry involved in the research of bioactive glass. Diagrams, pictures or a brief explanation the content would be very insightful. 4) One thing that could be applicable to my article. I like your use of author and scientist references in the text. When drafting my article, I refrained from adding specific names and described things more on the basis of the research involved with those people. I see in your article that the use of names doesn't bog down the article or make it overly confusing.

Peer Review by Rdh9hn (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
What does the draft do well? Anything that impressed you?

The draft is fairly well organized and I was impressed by the amount of information that was already there. Almost everything there is clear and concise in its writing. As someone who has learned a lot about these materials, I would say the information is both accurate and presents some interesting applications/examples.

What changes would you suggest? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I'm having a hard time determining what was actually written by the students vs. what was copied from the original article. I think highlighting changes would help with that a lot.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think adding some more detail to the "Structure" section would be beneficial, specifically adding information as to what the Q2 and Q3 crosslinks mean.

Did you notice anything about the article that could be applicable to your own article?

Yes, the materials discussed in this article are very similar to the materials used in my Glass-Ceramics article!

Peer Reviewed by Btmv2c

 * In the first paragraph, I think it would be helpful to mention what batching is. If I didn't know what it was previously then I wouldn't have known what was being done to the glass.
 * Overall, I got a good understanding of bioactive glass from your additions. I have personally researched bioactive glass previously so the additional information was very good.
 * I think some pictures of the glass would be beneficial since it is not just regular glass.

Peer Review by Zach Lienemann (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

The article includes plenty of sources and a great comparison of different types of bioglass. One turn of phrase that stuck out was the quote from Dr Greenlee.The use of the editor to show the chemical composition is great as well.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

Some changes I would suggest would be to make some of the wording more readable to a layperson. Specifically the use of "in vitro" and "in vivo" could benefit by being changed to more common wording or word them so that there's clues into what they mean. Maybe link them to an article about what they are? These changes would help make the article more readable by a common person.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

The most important thing that could be improved is to link all the medical words to their respective wiki articles so that someone that's not in the medical field can understand what they mean. You already have started doing this with "eutectic", great job!

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

You've done a great job signing off after each group member works in the sandbox, this is something that I need to get better about!