User talk:Kwei3/sandbox

Assignment 1: Chlorosome Critique

In this article, there are citation and content errors that yield an overall lack of quality.

Firstly, there are not enough citations, diminishing the article’s reliability. Generally, at least one citation per paragraph is needed, with controversial claims being cited. Three paragraphs, and the debatable claim about the chlorosomes’ adherence to reaction centres, are not cited. Several “hard facts” about chlorosomes, including their location and significance, are also missing citations. Most of the citations do come from reliable and independent sources, with no close paraphrasing or plagiarism. However, the first citation does not have the correct link; this inaccuracy, and the lack of citations, makes it hard to tell if there is unattributed material.

There are also content errors throughout the article. Relevant sections are missing, such as evolutionary significance, and some sections could use more elaboration, like biotechnological implications. These absences, together with a lack of images, prevent the article from generating a balanced coverage. The lead section contains ranges of values about physical properties, but neglects the averages discussed in the source article, which are more useful. In the Organization paragraph, a large portion of text mentions the procedure from only one study, and should be removed due to this bias. This material is also irrelevant, as readers are not interested in recreating the experiment, and can just refer to the citation if needed.

In the Talk page, there is one discussion of adding images, which again would be useful in helping the reader better understand chlorosomal structures.

Kwei3 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Reflection
Initially, I found this assignment to be difficult, as I am used to just reading Wikipedia article without questioning the integrity. However, after going through the rubric and the WikiEd modules, I think I am better at determining an article’s reliability and looking past extraneous information.

Kwei3 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2: Porins Critique

The topic of porins is notable, and has had significant coverage from many independent journals. However, the Porins article itself is underdeveloped and only contains 8 references, 7 of which are from established journals. Despite these relatively few references, hundreds of journals have published on porins, making the article a great area for improvement. As a result, the information garnered from the papers will be used to improve the “Cellular Roles” section.

Firstly, there should be at least one citation per paragraph, but only 2 incorrect citations exist for the section. The absence of citations in the rest of the section indicates unattributed plagiarism and close paraphrasing. As a result, by adding new citations from the papers below, the risk of plagiarism can be minimized.

Function is briefly covered in the section, but crucial details are still missing. There are discrepancies about the size of transported molecules, with some sentences saying “medium-sized” and another saying “small”. In fact, there are both large/general and small/chemically selective porins that exist. Additionally, the article’s statement that “porins are chemically selective” is misleading, as it neglects that general porins have no substrate specificity.

The article’s lead mentions that porins are also present in gram-positive bacteria and certain organelles. However, this section only describes the gram-negative characteristics. There should be a reference to the gram-positive porins, to highlight the distinctions between the two types of bacteria. For example, the functions are similar, but gram-negative bacteria do contain a greater variety of porins and signaling pathways, emphasizing their diversity. Additionally, the endosymbiont theory states that mitochondria and chloroplasts are descendants of gram-negative bacteria, explaining why they also contain porins. This could be useful in helping readers appreciate the prevalence of porins in the eukaryotic world.

The description of how antibiotic resistance arises through porin gene mutations could also be improved. Details about how they arise through selective pressure, and lead to the loss of porins should be added. Additional information should include how porins protect against other molecules, like host immune cells and proteases, to offer a more encompassing and balanced view of their defense functions.

Kwei3 (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by Lauren
Ultimately, the revisions were impressive. This would be an article I’d use to learn about porin functions in normal cell function.

The structure preceding and following the edit hasn’t significantly changed. That being said, it is well-organized with uninterrupted flow, and strategically allows for smooth transitions between explanations. Personally, the aspect I’d change is the definition of ‘nucleoporin’ to follow after the definition of ’porin’, so the audience can clearly distinguish the difference between both. I would've further clarified whether porins are also present in archaea. The revised content reflects a significantly deeper understanding of the porin’s usage in Gram-negative bacteria, but shallowly compares between that, and Gram-positive bacteria and eukaryotes. While the revision elaborates on technical aspects of Gram-negative bacteria, the amount of contact lacks in Gram-positive bacteria and eukaryotes - further additions would create an overall better balance. The best addition was regarding antibiotic transportation - however, to keep this section concise, this topic should be relegated to its own section. The section on ‘Cellular Roles’ should be solely dedicated to the primary functions, characteristics, and locations of porins.

I also noticed that the 2 original references were removed. Regarding the original references, one did not have a hyperlink, while the other doesn’t redirect to a specific page. Looking through the revised reliable references, there doesn't appear to be any close paraphrasing; however, the edits relied heavily on the first source (in itself, a very detailed and reliable review), and barely from the second and third sources. This article would benefit from two more equally detailed reviews - I would’ve included two sources just solely, respectively, on Gram positive bacteria and eukaryotes. Other than the minor corrections stated above, this revision is unbiased, well-structured, non-redundant, and is close to the encyclopedic quality I’d expect from a Wikipedia article. --Laureny13 (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)