User talk:Celina Sewlochan/sandbox

The Wikipedia article on peptidoglycan summarizes in a very neutral tone the structure and biosynthesis of this molecule, as well as highlights the differences found in its prevalence in gram positive and gram negative bacteria. These three sections have fairly balanced coverage, which is appropriate; however, there are two closing sections discussing other molecules similar to peptidoglycan and its inhibition by penicillin and lysozyme, which are a bit abrupt. This may be because the notability of cutting edge research is still questionable, (for example, glycosyltransferases are also a well-sought out target for peptidoglycan inhibition), but these sections should be updated as more information becomes reliable. The article also expresses gaps in knowledge, by stating that some molecules in its biosynthesis are not fully understood, but I don’t think this merits enough of a lack of knowledge to remove the article.

The “talk” page is limiting, but discusses the further use of diagrams to illustrate concepts such as the mesh-like structure of peptidoglycan. I further believe that a diagram exemplifying the steps involved in peptidoglycan biosynthesis would aid in its understanding, as this section is currently very dense.

The citations appear to come from reliable sources, with several journal article mentions. The first citation is the only one that refers to another website; however there is evidence of close paraphrasing from this source in the lead section of the Wikipedia article. Overall, most of the content is cited from journal articles (and is cited sufficiently, at least every 1-2 paragraphs). Celina Sewlochan (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I chose to edit the Wikipedia article on Quorum sensing, as this article has high notability and merits improvement, to which I believe I can make a valuable contribution. This article references 51 sources, of which 49 are journal articles, one is a textbook and one includes proceedings from an international workshop. There are also sections for further reading and external links, demonstrating that this topic is widely covered in a plethora of verifiable literature.

Looking in more detail at the abstracts and article titles, such as “Quorum Sensing in Aeromonas Species Isolated from Patients in Malaysia”, several reliable sources seem to concentrate their entire content on quorum sensing in different microbial species. There are a few exceptions to this, but the majority of sources show significant coverage of this topic.

Members on the “talk page” don’t seem to be advertising their own work, nor do have a stake in the article themselves; they are comparing what they know and have read in other sources to the content of the Wikipedia article. I think it is safe to assume that contributors are independent of the subject matter and that this article is unbiased.

On the “talk page”, one Wikipedian (paudav) identified several terms that are not very well defined in the abrupt “Quorum quenching” section. Unless you were an expert in this field, you would not retain anything from this paragraph. There is also a one-liner referencing a paper, but it is bogged down with methodology and there is no mention of the results of the study (specific degradation substrates used by the KM1S bacterial strain).

In my edits I will be defining some of the terms mentioned on the talk page, specifically “signalling molecule”, “KG medium”, “AHL degradation kinetic” and "RRLC". I will also elaborate on how quorum quenching bacteria disrupt signalling molecules (by outlining the two categories of inhibitors: molecules that mimic signals and those that inhibit enzymes), as this part feels disconnected from the rest of the paragraph. I believe these edits will improve the comprehension of readers and allow this section to flow more smoothly. Celina Sewlochan (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Celina Sewlochan's Peer Review
After reading the rest of the article about quorum sensing, the placement of the edited content is appropriate and relevant. However, quorum quenching could also be a completely separate article to highlight its functionality and importance. The edited content is organized in a well sensible order, and it reflects the most important information as it discusses different forms of quorum quenching. The added content gives more detailed information, while not misleading the reader to accept one particular point of view.

I would sometimes find myself lost, as I would not realize the author had moved on to a different topic. For example, when it jumps from talking about mimicking molecules to KM1S, I assumed KM1S was related to mimicking molecules. The section would be clearer for the readers if different forms of quorum quenching and its applications could be separated into little paragraphs. And each paragraph would have its first sentence giving a general idea of what each little paragraph is going to be about in relation to quorum quenching.

The main idea is supported by evidences from journal articles, although the citation seems to be done improperly. The author did not show citations from number 1 through 4, which corroborates the first half of the section. For the rest of the citations, only one citation was used to support one topic or idea. The point of view could have been more neutral if each topic would have at least 2 citations.

The most important thing the author should do is changing citation number 1 through 4, so that they show proper citations. Also, it would be much clearer to the readers if the section had been separated into little paragraphs. Andrew.oh (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)