User talk:Harjot Bhandol/sandbox

Assignment 1
Wiki article: Peptidoglycan

The article in question is close paraphrasing the cited source in the first four sentences of the introductory section. Also, this source (citation 1) is not reliable as the website includes a disclaimer mentioning an inability to guarantee the accuracy of any articles. The Wikipedia article also uses information pulled form another encyclopedia (citation 5) and the hyperlink does not go directly to the page the information was pulled. Additionally, the word “dry weight” in the introductory paragraph is 'wikilinked' to an article that pertains to a vehicle and not of a cell. An edit should be made here to create a piped link to redirect readers to the correct page. In terms of content, the introductory paragraph definitively mentions the role of MreB protein as a cell shape determinant, however when hyperlinks 2, 3 and 4 are checked for verification, this protein is only speculated to have a role in cell shape; some articles suggest the requirement of another protein, and thus this Wikipedia article is missing information. In the subsequent section called Structure, re-positioning of citation 8 is required for the first paragraph as it does not appear until the end of the second paragraph. For the Inhibition section of this article, the information is scattered as it jumps from assembly inhibition of peptidoglycan to antibiotic resistance and to post-assembly antibacterial effects; renaming this section would allow for more clarity on the section content. As a whole the article maintained neutral coverage and appropriate positioning of images.Harjot Bhandol (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2
Wiki article: Chemotaxis

The article lacks citations completely in subsections titled Clinical significance, Chemotactic range fitting, Chemotaxis related migratory responses, and Motility, and periodically in remaining subsections. I will be editing the subsection titled “Chemoattractants and chemorepellents” as it vaguely discusses chemotactic ligands with no specific examples and numerous knowledge gaps. I will use a scholarly peer-reviewed article by Kuruvilla et al. (2016) to discuss the role of Netrin-1 peptide as a chemorepellent to tetrahymena, a model organism. This peer-reviewed article also discusses adaptations that the organism can confer to chemorepellents thus filling knowledge gaps. Also chemoattractants will be discussed in the context of immune cells as positive chemotaxis is essential to their motility. To address this, I will be citing a peer-reviewed article by de Oliveira et al. (2013) by briefly mentioning the role of IL-8 in recruiting neutrophils to sites of infection. This source will also be used to accommodate the missing citation for the second sentence in the wiki subsection. Furthermore, the subsection does not compare bacterial and eukaryotic chemotactic ligands, as such I will be citing a peer-reviewed article by Schiffman et al. (1975) to provide specific examples of bacterial and eukaryotic chemoattractants with the added discussion of how bacteria can produce chemoattractants that are used by eukaryotes. Finally, I will be employing additional citations to provide further examples of both eukaryotic and prokaryotic chemoattractants and repellents thus accompanying this wiki subsection’s already provided examples. With the above reliable citations, it is evident that discussion on chemotactic ligands has high notability. It is also noteworthy to mention that this wikiarticle has a seperate subsection called Chemotactic ligands which attempts to discuss chemoattractants in eukaryotes; however, I would suggest removing this subsection as it seems to discuss molecules in general and not in relation to chemotaxis. To have simply added a hyperlink to the molecules in this subsection would have sufficed, a detail that will be employed in the edited subsection. Also no parallels are drawn to bacterial chemotactic ligands in the aforementioned subsection. Such discrepancies will be addressed in the subsection to be edited using the provided citations. Harjot Bhandol (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
Overall, the student successfully managed to improve the quality of the article through their edits. The student added five relevant citations that supplement all the claims discussed in the article. All of these citations come from a variety of reliable, unbiased sources, and the student has displayed their claims without any evidence of plagiarizing. The content is presented in a clear, concise way that does not obfuscate the reader’s understanding of the content with complicated scientific jargon.

I feel that the overall structure of the article could be improved by partitioning the relevant subsections into different paragraphs, to improve the flow of the article. For example, I would add a paragraph break between the overall definition of chemoattractants and chemorepellents, and the ways these chemicals induce responses in organisms. In the section describing the ways different prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells react to chemoattractants and chemorepellents, the student should include some details about the general properties of chemoattractants and repellants in eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells before giving out examples of the types of cells and their chemoattractants or chemorepellents.

In the last paragraph about Tetrahymena thermophila, the student begins to talk about a unique case where the bacteria adapt to a chemorepellent. However, I feel that the student did not sufficiently explain why an adapted Tetrahymena cell that is still affected by other chemorepellents has any microbiological significance. Jefft97 (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)