User:WeepingBritney/Malaria prof review

Quality as Teaching Aid

 * Is the level of this article appropriate for junior- and senior-level undergraduates? If not, what level of reader (or range of levels) would it be appropriate for?

It is totally appropriate for upper-level undergrads.


 * Is the topic of the article presented in a logical sequence?

Yes..it was excellent.


 * Would you recommend this article for your undergraduate students? If not, why not?

If I had undergraduate students, I would. . I would also recommend it to the medical students I teach.

Quality as Summary of the Topic

 * Does the article cover its topic completely?

I think so. . .most major areas are addressed.


 * Are the basic concepts and terminology of the topic introduced?

Yes, very well.


 * Is the amount of detail appropriate for the length of the article?

Yes, and the references are good.


 * Are there any glaring errors, omissions or misleading statements?

A few – the first exoerythrocytic cycle in the liver is NOT termed a hyponozoite - - that term is reserved for the latent forms of P. vivax and P. ovale.

The statement that “In cerebral malria, the sequestrated RBCs can breach the blood-brain barrier, possibly leading to coma”, is incorrect. The cytoadherence of parasitized red cells to vascular endothelium is so strong that even when the vessel ruptures, which is not uncommon, parasitized red cells rarely ever leak into the brain. And, a point of syntax: we tend to use ‘sequestered’ rather than ‘sequestrated’ to describe the cytoadherence of parasitized red cells.

The pathogenesis section is a little oversimplified, too - - there is probably more to the ‘coma’ of cerebral malaria than blocked blood vessels!


 * How precise and/or quantitative is the article?

There are enough numbers to convey the magnitude of the problem, but there is not an overwhelming amount of quantitation.


 * Is the article up-to-date? If not, when would this article have been a current review of its topic?

Totally! I was impressed!!


 * Is the historical development of the topic covered?

Very nicely.

Readability

 * Is the writing clear and well-organized?

It’s OK…parts are awkward (e.g “ It has been generally accepted that it is impractical to provide at-risk individuals with this vaccination strategy, but that has been recently challenged with work being done by Dr. Stephen Hoffman of Sanaria, one of the key researchers who originally sequenced the genome of Plasmodium falciparum. His work most recently has revolved around solving the logistical problem of isolating and preparing the parasites equivalent to a 1000 irradiated mosquitoes for mass storage and inoculation of human beings. The company has recently received several multi-million dollar grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the U.S. government to begin early clinical studies in 2007 and 2008.[87] “ is true enough, but doesn’t flow very well.


 * Does the article have good flow?

Most of the time it flows nicely.


 * Is the article redundant anywhere?

Not in any significant way.

Figures

 * Are the figures clear, and do they help explain the topic?

They are excellent. There are nice images of sequestered parasites which are published, and which could be used, too…

Yes.
 * Are the figures consistent with each other and with the text?


 * Do the figures have any exceptional features, such as being three-dimensional?

No, but this doesn’t detract from the article.