User talk:Rb237512

Welcome!
Hello, Rb237512, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation-Aureolysin
Wikipedia Evaluation Content Is the material organized and focused? The material is organized and focused. However, some content is misplaced and some sections have very little information.

Is the presentation understandable? The presentation is understandable.

Does the article cover the topic comprehensively, partially, or is it an overview? The article covers the topic only partially. The activation section is only partially done because even though there is not a lot out there, I know that there is more than what is written. Also, in the function section, it is more of an overview. There can be more added to this section as well.

What is the quality of evidence? The quality is good. Most of the references are scholarly articles and a few a textbook refences.

Does the article have references or is it just someone’s knowledge. Were assumptions made? The article has references. In fact, almost every sentence is referenced. From what I could tell, no assumptions were made.

How could the content be improved? Many improvements could be made in this article. For example, the general introductory section of aureolysin is rather lacking. I plan to add more details such as what aureolysin works on, its importance in virulence, and a general overview of its functionality. In genetics, I plan to talk about how aureolysin is on a monocistronic operon and more details about the gene itself. I also plan on further investigating the activation and repression of aur by master regulators such as sigma factor B, the agr system, RNA III, and rot. In activation I believe it is important to talk about the staphylococcal proteolytic cascade that aureolysin induces. Also how it autocatalyzes itself to activate. In function, a lot can be added to this section. For one, I can elaborate on how aureolysin interacts with host factors including the innate immune system, fibrinogen, and colonization within the body. Also, aureolysin mediates S. aureus secreted toxins and cell wall factors so that the bacteria can establish a chronic infection and not just a systemic one. I plan to elaborate on that as well. I feel that biological significance could have a few things shifted around and that aureolysins regulation of biofilm formation needs to be moved to the function section.

Writing

Does this article have an introduction? Yes, the article has one but it is small and not very informative.

Is the introduction understandable and does it summarize the article’s key points? It is understandable but it does not summarize key points of the article.

Are there several headings and subheadings? There are several headings but no sub headings. I plan to add subheadings to the function section.

Is there anything missing? Besides what I have mentioned in the content evaluation, I believe a chart of the staphylococcal proteolytic cascade induced by aureolysin would be a good addition.

Are there images and diagrams at appropriate places, and appendices and footnotes at the end? There is only a 3D depiction of the metalloprotease. I want to add a diagram as mentioned above. There are no footnotes.

Is the coverage neutral (unbiased)? The facts are neutral and unbiased.

Are facts emphazied? It is hard to say because there is so little information and flow that most of the content is just straight facts.

Are the references reliable sources? Why or why not Yes they are. Most of the sources are from journals, some that I have even read. Others are from textbooks or other tertiary sources which makes me believe that they are accurate and credible.

Rb237512 (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)