User talk:Cath.ubc.ca/sandbox

Assignment #1
The chosen article is Peptidoglycan. This article is generally unbiased and informative, but has many flaws. It is rated as start-class on the Wikipedia quality scale; an overall mediocre effort. Most citations are from reliable sources. Some are taken from peer-reviewed articles from distinguished scientific journals like Nature, Science. Some are from textbooks. Most of the sources are dated in early 2000s. The article should be updated with more recent sources.

The format of the citation raises concerns about credibility. The first citation is not in a proper citation format; it's a hyperlink to a website, namely, Pharma Change.info. The website is run by two individuals and represents their views only; this in turn raises concerns about the reliability of the source. The ninth citation is a hyperlink to a web page. However, the web page is no longer available, thus invalidating this source.

Illustrations in this article are not consistent with the content and structure of the article. The images showing the structure of peptidoglycan and the gram-positive cell wall are relevant to the subtopic Structure. However the picture of penicillin binding protein is not relevant to the section and should have been moved to the appropriate section under the subtopic Inhibition. The phrase, “(See above)”, is used in one sentence; however, it is not clear which picture or information it refers to.

The observations stated in this critique raise concern about the reliability of the sources and credibility of the article. Cath.ubc.ca (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Cath.ubc.ca (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment #2
The chosen article is Extracellular Polymeric Substances.

Although poorly written, the content in the “Function” section of this article is of high notability. Extracellular polymeric substances (EPSs) have more uses and applications than what is stated in the article. The article only vaguely mentions a few applications, mainly industrial uses. The article does not mention any ecological uses of EPSs. Within the last five years, researches have shown that EPSs play an important role in bioremediation in both water and soil. There is significant coverage of this subject in distinguished journals like Public Library of Science. And these studies were carried out for research purposes and not by companies working with EPSs.

In order to improve the content of the “Function” section, I will add a new paragraph, with the subheading “The Ecological Roles of EPSs”. I will summarize information from an article published in Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology in 2016, which presents information on EPSs’ role in waste water treatment. I will then write about the use of EPSs in soil bioremediation. This information will come from an article published in Process Biochemistry in 2011. I will also consult an article published in Public Library of Science in 2013, which talks about EPSs and the bioremediation of oil spill.

Cath.ubc.ca (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Cath.ubc.ca's Peer Review
The original wiki page starts with general description of ESP and what it is composed of. The second section titled “Function” was replaced with “Bioremediation”. The “Function” section should be kept because it contains significant information on the role of EPS for the organism itself. Whereas new information under “Bioremediation” contains information on applications of the EPS to benefit the environment. The “Bioremediation” section would be more appropriately placed after the “Function” section.

The edited content is relevant and related to the rest of the article, it gives a variety of different ways which EPSs can be applied to bioremediation. This is great because it gives readers a broad scope, however more details can be given, such as a brief description of the mechanisms behind how EPSs allows the absorption and breakdown that was talked about in the reference articles. A couple sentences (talking about conventional methods of bioremediation and multiple bacteria) in the edited content are unnecessary due to the fact that it is off-topic and not enough background information is provided to make it meaningful in the context.

All edited information comes from reliable and scholarly journal articles which contain credible information regarding the topic. The statements are evenly attributed to the references and multiple applications in bioremediation are addressed from the references. All statements that were referenced can be traced back in the original papers. However, the new information only discusses the positives of using EPS as a bioremediation method, information on limitations and drawbacks from the papers will provide a more holistic perspective.

The edited information is easy to comprehend and read because it is very concise and there are no run on sentences. The sentences also flow in a logical order, however connecting words can be used to relate the ideas in each sentence together. The added content is neutral and does not try to persuade the reader in any way. The information stated is an collected integration of the main ideas presented in the papers rather than close paraphrasing. Sunnys07 (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)