User talk:Ana Gallego Cortés/sandbox

Bacterial Circadian Rhythms
To start with the critique of this Wikipedia article I would like to highlight the importance of an objective publication. While reading this article, I have found many opinions and assumptions made by the writer. One example could be found in the section "History", in which a subjective statement is included in the first paragraph (“The conclusion… seemed reasonable”). Furthermore, the text doesn´t fit Wikipedia´s writing style as there is a title ("History" section) and a paragraph ("Adaptative significance" section) including a question.

When referencing the facts, unnamed sources of information can be found in the article. Some clear examples are shown in the "History" (“the data from cyanobacteria suggest…”) and in the "Adaptive significance" (“there have been few rigorous tests…”) sections. Furthermore, there aren´t hyperlinks attached to the citations and I have found one reference that are from an article which isn´t in public domain (first reference). Moreover, it is common to see many references at the end of one phrase making it more difficult to know the exact information referred. However, we can find that most of the references come from reliable sources such as PubMed articles.

Talking about the content of the article, I have noticed that there is not a balanced coverage of the topics as the section "History" is too long and includes irrelevant facts whereas other viewpoints such as the mechanism of the circadian rhythm system or its regulation aren´t enough expanded. Moreover, I have found some recent articles that can update the information showed and contribute to expand the content, especially of "Molecular mechanism" section. Ana Gallego Cortés (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2: Deinococcus radiodurans
Although Deinococcus radiodurans has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale, I think that some information about the latest applications of this microorganism may be added to the article in order to update it and make it more engaging. The “Application” section of the article only mentions bioremediation purposes whereas some recent studies have been using Deinococcus radiodurans for biomedical research about cancer and aging and in the nanotechnology field. Moreover, the article seems to give more importance to the last paragraph of the section explaining, in detail, one curiosity about the bacteria instead of spreading into different bioremediation applications which, nowadays, their importance is rising.

Above all, one of the references found in the article includes information about biomedical applications of the bacteria which are not mentioned. Focusing on cancer and aging, it is to point out that both process are due to increased oxidation of DNA and proteins caused by ROS generation, decreased antioxidant defenses and mutations due to poor DNA repair among other reasons. D.radiodurans could be a laboratory model in order to do research about its resistance mechanism and repair of DNA and therefore develop strategies to antagonize aging and carcinogenesis. As these topics are related to oxidative stress, I find convenient that a specific section, focused on the microorganism mechanism to endure this, should be included in the article and not only be briefly described in the “Mechanisms of ionizing-radiation resistance” section.

Furthermore, as I commented before, Deinococcus radiodurans has been used in nanotechnology. I have found some articles with detailed information about the use of the bacteria to synthetize nanoparticules of silver and gold that could provide further benefits in biomedical applications as they seem to exhibit excellent antibacterial, anti-biofouling and anticancer activity.

In conclusion, knowing that this article´s notability is quite high, as it is a current scientific topic, and many laboratories are doing research about this microorganism, updated information should be added to complete it. For these reasons, I am going to focus my edition into “Application” section mainly but also I am going to include a section about D.radiodurans mechanism to resist oxidative stress so as to support it.

Ana Gallego Cortés (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ana Gallego Cortés' Peer Review
Overall, the edit to the article is an improvement as it adds current and relevant research topics that the article was severely lacking. The organization of the structure is easy to understand, with a sensible order, making mention of the most important applications (ie. bioremediation) before the more minor/less researched ones. The section "Applications" is appropriately placed at the end of the article, after detailed mechanistic explanations of the organism. The organization is well done and the only suggestion I would make is perhaps a chronological order with the most recent research topics mentioned first. The content is updated but there is lack of cohesive information in the two new topics. For example, in the biomedical application, the abbreviation ROS (reactive oxygen species) is not defined at all in the third paragraph, leaving the average reader unable to understand. The bioremediation and uncommon application sections are unedited, even though simple edits such as shortening the last paragraph would remove unnecessary details. The writing does well to be neutral, aims to be informative and comparison to the references shows no close paraphrasing. However, the writing could be more concise, such as shortening "biomedical research about cancer and aging" in the first paragraph to just "biomedical research" as the two subtopics will be mentioned anyways in the subsequent explanation. The most important improvement that could be done is better incorporation of the sources. It is better to cite directly after factual statements from references instead of simply adding them at the end of an entire paragraph. This would also reduce the amount of unsourced statements in the third and fourth paragraphs. Lastly, more than one source should be used in important topics such as the biomedical application.

Pheenee (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)