User talk:MackenzieGutierrez/sandbox

Peptidoglycan Article Critique

All information presented is relevant to the topic and the article is organized into appropriate subsections. The talk page contains suggestions for the addition of a Gram Stain subsection as it is a significant topic relating to peptidoglycan. I would also suggest expanding upon the “Inhibition” subsection as the last edit was in 2013. With the rapid progression in antibiotic research, it is likely that this subsection can be updated and expanded upon. Numerical data is used to compare gram negative and gram positive bacteria, though this information is not cited, as is the case with many other statements. The “Biosynthesis” subsection seems neutral and objective though the citations made are primarily from the same source indicating bias towards that particular reference. I would suggest to incorporate multiple sources to ensure that information is valid and justified by a variety of research.

In the “Structure” subsection the term “most important,” is used, which can be considered as persuasive language. This claim is not properly justified or objective. The claim should be further elaborated and more objective language should be used to maintain neutrality. There are other general statements made that should be expanded upon to strengthen the information presented.

There are a number of sources properly cited to credible journal articles though there are also some sources cited in which the hyperlink does not function or is not included. Some citations are not from peer-reviewed sources, indicating that the information may lack validity. There is no evidence of close paraphrasing.

MackenzieGutierrez (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

assignment 2 - Xenobiotic
This article is of high notability based on a number of factors, including the environmental implications of Xenobiotics and the role of microorganisms. Beyond the environmental implications, there are also implications for human health based on the role of normal flora in the degradation of xenobiotics. Further, the discussion of the future of bioremediation and the efforts to use biotechnology in order to engineer microorganisms specialized in degrading harmful environmental xenobiotics should be incorporated to keep the article up to date with current research.

The “Xenobiotics in the environment” subsection requires significant improvement in terms of the depth of the information included. The role of microorganisms is described in only one sentence, despite its significance. This sentence is also very vague and may be interpreted as being persuasive in claiming that microorganisms have the ability to degrade “almost all” of the Xenobiotics found on earth. This sentence lacks objectivity and should be expanded with the use of credible sources in order to explain the significance of the role of microbes in xenobiotic degradation as well its environmental implications in terms of bioremediation. Bioremediation is considered a viable solution for pollution created by many important industries in our society and thus this type of information should be included.

This section also mentions that xenobiotics play a role in sewage treatment systems, though this statement is incomplete and requires much more detail regarding the role of microorganisms in this process. Its description of certain types of Xenobiotics is limited to PAHs, crude oil and coal and can be further elaborated to include additional types of Xenobiotics, including those discussed in MICB 301 and more specifically, how microorganisms contribute to their degradation. For example, the role of PCBs, PCEs and the process of dechlorination and the specific organisms involved would significantly improve the value of the information provided. Singh A. (2004) discusses the details of a number of different xenobiotics and the associated bioremediation techniques, and inclusion of this information would greatly strengthen the article.

MackenzieGutierrez (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Mackenzie's Peer Review
Peer review for Mackenzie’s edited article “Xenobiotic”

The editor has chosen the section “Xenobiotics in the environment” from the original article “Xenobiotic” to edit.

The overall structure of the edited version is fitting to the original article. The added content is relevant and well presented in the lead. However, two parallel ideas were somewhat physically distant: “[...] to manipulate the metabolic pathways of microorganism [...]” and “[...] to engineer microorganism [...]”. Since both ideas are based on genetically modifying organisms, it would improve the article flow to somehow near them within the paragraph.

The content of the edits are pertinent and related to the original article topic, all supported by well chosen literature. The editor maintained neutral point of view as no bias tone was elicited. A brief definition for “syntrophic bacterial consortia” would be needed, as no further explanation of it was presented. Since the majority of the edits circle around the impact of microorganisms on xenobiotics, perhaps a subsection could be inserted under the “Xenobiotics in the environment” section.

As mentioned previously, the sources are well chosen, reliable, and extensively cover the original article. The editor extracted relevant information from each. Unfortunately in the citations, sources 2 and 6 are the same. There is a disproportion of more references to source 4 than the other sources. Nevertheless, it did not shift the edits heavily toward one point of view as different viewpoints were extracted to contribute as a whole.

Finally, the writing was concise and easy to understand. There were minor wording issues such as “[...] particularly in the subsurface environment and water sources, but also in biological system” followed by “both,” which is confusing as how many environments there are. Definitions of chemical acronyms PCB, PAH, and TCE should be given.

Overall, the edits were satisfactory to all five elements of a good Wikipedia article.

Gu Yu (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)