User talk:Jenniferchen41/sandbox

Peer Review

Feedback

1. All information added has been sourced very thoroughly and paraphrased correctly, with the majority of information coming from scientific articles. This suggests that reliable research has been conducted.

2. The topic "Interaction with other pathogens" is a great choice and relevant topic to many areas of active research. It is a high importance topic and the fact that the section on it was lacking citations and in depth information made it a great choice to improve.

3. The information added to the section you edited was relevant and of importance. Specifically the information added on the mechanism of the interactions between pathogens was a great addition.

Suggestions

1. Add more depth to the section you edited. The information you currently have is a great start but the section could benefit from widening the range of information and interactions. The information on antibacterial peptides and the mechanism of the interactions could be expanded as well. Adding more depth and focussing on less overall areas would benefit the overall structure of the passage and the flow. See the sources below for improving the areas on pathogen interactions and think about cutting some single ideas such as biofilm production mentioned briefly in the first paragraph.

2. The tone used in the writing is mostly formal but occasionally uses phrases that do not fit with the overall formal tone. For instance using phrases such as "On the other hand" can break up the flow of the article. The overall flow of the content is good, though there are some areas for improvement; Most of the applications have an explanation regarding their importance but the explanation for the inhibition of pathogen growth could be benefited by adding more information such as interactions with other specific pathogens. Adding this as an area of greater focus will improve the overall structure of the article.

3. Creating a list of all the known pathogens that Lactobacillus species interact with could be of benefit to the article. Many readers looking for this topic would probably find this information of interest. If you are having trouble finding this information you could check the following sources:

http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC4822684/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25144609

https://books.google.ca/books?id=WSa8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=lactobacillus+pathogen+interactions&source=bl&ots=8ieWcsftZ1&sig=431nOML0Zf23CeJX0B88hdQwJXM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn2ePH36XXAhUD5WMKHX5OBTYQ6AEIVjAI#v=onepage&q=lactobacillus%20pathogen%20interactions&f=false

The last article has some great information on the mechanism in which Lactobacillus can induce gut immunity.

Ben willox (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 1: Critique of "Peptidoglycan" article

This article presents a sufficient amount of information from a neutral perspective and breaks the topic down into different headings, which is good. However, this article is rated as a "start" article and can be improved. First, coverage of the different aspects of the subject is not balanced and a large part of the lead should be placed in a new section with the heading "Function". The section titled "Similarity to pseudopeptidoglycan" only contains information about pseudopeptidoglycan, so it should be excluded from the article as it is irrelevant to the topic. Though the images included in this article are effective, two of them are the author's own work, which is a poor source. Those images should be replaced with ones from reliable sources. There are also missing references. The first paragraph under "Structure", which consists of facts and a value statement claiming the importance of peptidoglycan, has no references even though every sentence should be referenced. In addition, there is a reference with an unreachable hyperlink (reference 8) and another that does not take you to the article it is citing (reference 5). Also, Reference 1 comes from a poor source that is not known for fact checking so it should be replaced with a reliable and independent source that is known for fact checking. Another problem with this article is that it contains close paraphrasing. The third sentence of the lead should be reworded as it is almost identical to a sentence in the article it is referencing.

Jenniferchen41 (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2: Choosing a Wikipedia article

The article I have chosen to edit is "Lactobacillus". I chose this article because it is rated as a start class with high importance, meaning there is plenty of room for improvement. I also chose this article for its high notability which became apparent when I did a literature search on the topic. Through my literature search, I found numerous papers containing information about the Lactobacillus genus and these papers all came from reliable and independent sources that are known for fact checking. There are two main areas of this Wikipedia article that I would like to edit.

First of all, the "Metabolism" section of this article has no citations even though there should be a reference for almost every sentence. In fact, there is even a message on the Wikipedia page concerning the lack of citations in this section. Through my literature search, I found papers outlining the heterofermentative and homofermentative metabolism mechanisms of Lactobacillus, and how Lactobacillus lack a respiratory chain due to its lack of heme molecules. I also found literature describing the aerotolerance of Lactobacillus and how manganese is used in place of superoxide dismutase to defend against the toxicity of oxygen.

The other section of this article that I would like to edit and add information to is “Interaction with other pathogens”. Not only does this section contain close paraphrasing, but it also only contains two sentences even though there is a substantial amount of information in published literature that should go in this section. I believe my additions will move this section towards becoming more complete and move the whole article towards becoming more balanced. In addition to inhibiting the virulence of Candida albicans through the production of hydrogen peroxide as mentioned in the article, Lactobacillus also inhibits the virulence of Candida albicans by disturbing biofilm formation and filamentation. This section of the article also failed to mention the various antimicrobial molecules produced by different Lactobacillus species, which I would like to add. These antimicrobial molecules include ones that inhibit the growth of Listeria monocytogenes, Bacillus cereus, Salmonella sp., Staphylococcus sp., and various others.

Jenniferchen41 (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)