User talk:Gu Yu/sandbox

Assignment 1.

== A critique of the Wikipedia article Anaerobic respiration ==

This Wikipedia article exhibit proper structure and a neutral point of view. The subtopics are somewhat developed but are roughly linked to one another. There are several terminology and syntax issues. The use of “final electron acceptor” and “terminal electron acceptor” is not consistent throughout the article. “Lower” instead of “smaller” would be a more suitable adjective to describe reduction potential. The phrase “[…] meaning that they can respire only using anaerobic compounds” can be rephrased to “they can only respire anaerobically.”

In the section “Anaerobic respiration as compared with fermentation,” the first sentence is almost a direct quote from its reference article, which risk of plagiarisms (close paraphrasing). It also hints an emphasis on methane yet nowhere else in this section methane is mentioned. However, methane is reoccurring in the following section for methanogenesis, breaking the flow of this subtopic. The differences between fermentation and anaerobic respiration are contracted minimally, a repetitive issue discussed on the Talk page. Furthermore, the only cited source from this section targets respiration in a marine environment, which is too specific for this article. The statement supported by reference 5 is not the primary focus of the article itself, although acceptable, a more suitable source could have been used. Contrarily, information from reference 6 was well extrapolated. There may be a need to include a reference for the first paragraph in the “Ecological importance” section. In the ensemble, references were appropriate and acceptable peer-reviewed journal articles or from extracts of reliable and educational textbooks. Reflection of a Wikipedia article critique.

The most challenging and time-consuming part was to coordinate the information taken from the source and what is written in the article. The chosen article has a vivid Talk page, which obligated me to rewrite some my my points. Overall, it was a good experience to learn how to use the Sandbox and some navigators on the Wikipedia website.

Gu Yu (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2.

== Choose your Wikipedia Article: Gas vesicles ==

This topic can generate an elaborate Wikipedia page as it is a highly notable subject in the scientific world. Many publications have targeted gas vesicles and extensive researches have been conducted on them. These include but not limited to the genomic regulations of the gas vesicle operons (gvp) on the transcriptional and translational levels as well as the regulation of their size and shape once gas vesicles have entered developmental stages. The cell physiology and gas vesicle’s phenotype changes resulting from genomic manipulations of gvp genes components have been observed. The functions of gas vesicles as buoyancy apparatuses for diverse microorganisms that serve to modulate physiological demands (ie. photosynthesis) in varying environments were also recorded. Despite its high notability, the Wikipedia article on gas vesicles lacks a few components that merit enrichment.

The first section of the article “Function” is severely underdeveloped and needs tremendous attention. It only surveys two reasons related to buoyancy that gas vesicles bring to organisms (photosynthesis and oxygen concentration). However, the significance of moving vertically within water columns via gas vesicles also contribute to protection against light and weather variants. Additionally, that article does not explain why these factors are important for the individual organism nor for a microorganism community. It is also missing the function of gas vesicles in vitro for other fields of scientific researches, particularly as tools in biotechnology and experimental medicine, an area I hope to add to this article.

Since gas vesicles are relatively stable biological structures that can easily be isolated and manipulated, they have been used as carrier vehicles to deliver antigens that can trigger long-lasting immunologic memories. This method can further serve as baseline for creating vaccines for several human diseases. Stimulus with recombinant gas vesicles and Chlamydia antigens has shown pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Likewise, a similar protocol targeting Salmonella pathogens have yielded parallel immunologic results. By adding the above to the Wikipedia particle, not only the article will have the functional, genomic, and physical aspects of gas vesicles, but also the applications of them as the new border line for scientific discoveries.

-Gu Yu (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yu Gu's Peer Review
The edit of the Wikipedia article Gas vesicle by the student involved the addition of a new section. Because the added section is about an application of gas vesicles, its placement at the end the article is logical. In addition, the structure of the edit is organized wisely, starting with the general characteristics of gas vesicles that make them useful in vaccines, then giving two examples after. The information provided was also all relevant to the main topic and explained in a straightforward way. Analysis of the cited references confirmed that the content added in the edit demonstrates the most important findings of the three primary sources. Although two of the sources originated from the same department at the University of Massachusetts, all three papers are written by different authors. Furthermore, the articles on the two examples given were published recently, reflecting current content.

In order to improve the edit, some changes to the grammatical structure of the sentences would allow for more clarity and cohesion of the section. For example, the first sentence could be written as “The gas vesicle gene… is used as a delivery system in vaccine studies.” Similarly, the last paragraph would have more consistency if the verbs are written in the past tense. The minor typo of the abbreviation “OmcP” instead of “OmcB” can also be easily fixed. Subsequently, the information about gas vesicles’ ability to tolerate temperatures of up to 50°C cannot be found in the two citations. Moreover, the first sentence of the paragraph on Chlamydia trachomatis is a close-paraphrase of a sentence in the abstract of the reference and should therefore be reworded. Finally, a suggestion to further improve the section would be to introduce a different point-of-view of the topic such as possible limitations of using gas vesicles in vaccine production.

Antyrahdeguzman (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)