User talk:Swimminganddogs/sandbox

Assignment 1 Article: Bacterial circadian rhythms

While the article references reliable sources from peer-reviewed journals, there are multiple instances of uncited facts. For example, the lead lists three criteria required of circadian rhythms with no citations. Upon further inspection, the creator of the article was the original source of these ideas and had been published in a reliable journal. Thus, some ideas in the article may be the creator’s own, but it would have been helpful to cite their personal work or other reliable sources with similar findings. The headings of the article can be edited to summarize the section simply and not in the structure of an essay question. “History: are prokaryotes capable of circadian rhythmicity?” can be shortened to “History” and “Visualizing the clockwork’s ‘gears’: structural biology of clock proteins” can be replaced by “Structure of clock proteins” for clarity. It is also not appropriate to include personal opinions, so sentences like “[w]hile intuitive, the conclusion was flawed” should be avoided. Similarly, the language should be as neutral as possible; for example, phrases like “groundbreaking” and “the most spectacular” are unsuitable. The article was created in 2009 and recent research has provided new insight into bacterial circadian rhythms. Cyanobacteria have been found to regulate their circadian rhythms primarily in response to changes in metabolic activity detected by KaiABC proteins. Non-cyanobacterial prokaryotes have been shown to operate circadian rhythms and human gut microbiota respond to melatonin – a regulator of circadian rhythms. These are updates that should be included to further develop the article. Swimminganddogs (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Article: Exotoxin

There is significant coverage of exotoxins in primary source peer-reviewed articles and secondary source textbooks, such as in Nature and Encyclopedia of Microbiology. Two examples are the “Exotoxins” chapter in Encyclopedia of Microbiology and in the “Bacterial Pathogenesis” chapter of Medical Microbiology. Despite its notability in numerous reliable and independent sources, the Wikipedia article is flagged for the need of additional citations. The article is rated as High-Importance under Wikiproject Microbiology but is also Start-Class, further meriting the need for improvement.

The lead has generally clear and neutral language. It provides a basic definition of exotoxins, treatment options, and well-known examples but excludes important information; for example, the finding that both gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria secrete exotoxins is not mentioned. It can also be added that exotoxins are mostly heat-labile, soluble proteins encoded in chromosomal or extrachromosomal genes (e.g. plasmids and bacteriophages). Exotoxins can be fatal in small doses (e.g. 1 μg) but their potency varies and can depend on the host cells they are acting upon. The lead is meant to be an overview of the entire article but does not summarize the types of exotoxins described in the subheadings of the article. Vaccines and antitoxins are mentioned but not given their own headings for further description. Adding citations for each fact and inclusion of additional basic information would be beneficial. The most obvious issue throughout the article is the lack of references. While the seven references included are from reliable sources, most facts are uncited; for example, “[e]xotoxins …may be fatal to the host before the immune system has a chance to mount defenses against them” has no source. The hyperlink to one source was not functional and had to be searched manually. Information about applications and treatment that were mentioned in the lead should be detailed in the article. Additionally, research findings such as recombinant exotoxins being tested to treat tumors can further expand the article. Creating individual headings like “Health effects,” “Treatment” to explain antitoxins, and “Biotechnology” to describe cancer treatment and vaccinations using inactivated exotoxins while citing new and existing material can improve this article. Swimminganddogs (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Swimminganddogs Peer Review
Positive Feedback: 1) Writing is clear and concise; presenting ideas efficiently without "fillers". 2) Placement of edits within article are appropriate. Provides real world applications of topics that build upon information addressed in previous sections of the original article. This also help solidify main concepts relating to exotoxins that may have been more confusing in the more detailed sections of the article. 3) References used are good primary sources of information taken from scientific journals relating to the topic of exotoxins.

Suggestions: 1) The "Extracellular Matrix Damage" section in the original article is already brief, so the addition of the new sections makes it seems more unimportant. Perhaps there is a way to incorporate it, or create a transition, between the sections so the article doesn't seem as segmented. 2) The main points of the "Vaccination" section are addressed in the opening of the original article "The toxic properties of most exotoxins can be inactivated by heat or chemical treatment to produce a toxoid. These retain their antigenic specificity and can be used to produce antitoxins and, in the case of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, are used as vaccines." To remove repetitiveness within the article, consider rearranging sentences or adding different information via the references to give the reader additional or more detailed information.

The suggestions I'm giving are more minor changes that really aren't of too much concern as the additions to the article are well written. As a result, I could not come up with a third suggestion. The additions fit well into the article in terms of both placement and relevance to the preceding information in the original article. The tone of the writing is neutral and presents facts in a clear and concise way. The added sections provide further understanding beyond the mechanistic details and definitions in the original article. These, and the reasons stated above in "Positive Feedback" are why I was only able to provide two, less significant, suggestions. Camc01 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC) 1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camc01 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)