User talk:Talia Ada Ang/sandbox

Assignment 1: Critique of "Bacterial circadian rhythms"

"Bacterial circadian rhythms" is a poorly written Wikipedia article. First, although the listed sources are reliable publishers such as NCBI PubMed, each citation was clearly outdated, published between 1993 and 2008. Many articles have since been released, including Nature Reviews, which published an article in February 2017 regarding the evolutionary benefit of gut bacteria having circadian rhythms, allowing them to foresee nutrient arrival. The Wikipedia article would be greatly enhanced if this gut bacteria example was added to the "Adaptive significance” section as it provides insight as to when and how circadian clocks are used. The "Molecular mechanism of the cyanobacterial clockwork" section can also be updated and improved by adding information from Science Magazine (published in March 2017) regarding signaling proteins SasA and CikA, which control gene expression using circadian rhythms. Second, although the reference list appears long, several important facts remain without references. For instance, the article's first sentence, which defines bacterial circadian rhythms, does not have a reference despite mentioning factual information such as their characteristics. Third, although hyperlinked words such as "cyanobacteria" and "transcription" correspond to the correct Wikipedia page, no references were hyperlinked, making it challenging to check the sources’ verifiability. References should be hyperlinked to enhance the article’s verifiability. Fourth, the Talk Page lacks conversation, with only the author's comments regarding time to complete the page dated 2009. Moreover, one comment asking for clickable references is never completed or answered. More feedback on the article is needed to make it more reliable. Talia Ada Ang (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Reflection: Evaluating the Wikipedia article taught me to be more skeptical of the references list and to make sure the information is up to date and from a reliable source. This assignment was of medium difficulty level. I had an idea of what to look for, but it was challenging to determine what the Wikipedia article was lacking compared to other more recent publications about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talia Ada Ang (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2: Critique of "Lactobacillus"

The Wikipedia article "Lactobacillus" is of mediocre quality and can be improved. This article is partially notable because several reliable sources are cited and the information is unbiased. However, it does not represent the assortment of research that has already been published regarding the topic. For example, the subheading "Probiotics" lacks coverage, especially because there have been many publications regarding Lactobacillus for probiotic development. To improve the article, I would add that Lactobacillus is also ingested as probiotics during cases of infection by ulcer-causing Helicobacter pylori. Helicobacter pylori is a bacterium that is linked to cancer, and antibiotic resistance is impeding the success of current antibiotic-based eradication treatments. However, when probiotics are administered along with the treatment, its efficacy is substantially increased. This application of Lactobacillus is worth noting because it illustrates its important role in the survival of potential cancer patients. Further, to elaborate on how Lactobacillus accomplishes this, I would explain that Lactobacillus forms biofilms which allow them to persist during harsh environmental conditions. This grants them the ability to colonize and maintain a sufficient population. The formation of biofilms benefits the growth of microbial populations of probiotics since the extracellular polysaccharide matrix serves as protection against antibiotics and enzymes. By including and elaborating on these details, the Wikipedia article will provide a more up-to-date and substantial description of the importance of probiotics and its healthcare applications. I would also add general information about Lactobacillus in the introductory paragraph. For example, when the article states that Lactobacillus constitutes “microbiota at a number of body sites," I would further elaborate with examples, such as the digestive system, urinary system, and genital system. I would also note that Lactobacillus is the most common probiotic found in food such as yogurt, and that it is diverse in its application to maintain human well-being as it can help treat diarrhea, vaginal infections and skin disorders such as eczema. This would strengthen the article by giving the reader a better idea of the common applications of Lactobacillus from the start. Talia Ada Ang (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

The edits made to this article added lots of good content and useful information, especially in the section on probiotics. The tone of the writing was very neutral and the writing was good overall. The placement of the section in the parent article makes sense, but the organization of the information could be improved. There are quite a few places where things that are mentioned in the edits appear or belong in other places on the parent article. For example, discussions regarding the role of Lactobacillus in vaginal health has it's own section, so it shouldn't be restated in the section on probiotics. Some of the material in the edit itself could be organized better, right now it seems as though there isn't a very logical flow from one idea to the next. There are also a few sentences in the introductory paragraph that are far too specific for an introduction. Some of the "factual" information is incorrect, like the use of the term "genital system" and the idea that hydrogen peroxide lowers the pH of vaginas. The use of Medline as a source is okay, but it is more targeted to a general audience so academic sources would be preferred. Overall, the biggest thing that could be done to improve this article is to reorganize each paragraph so that the sentences and ideas flow logically from one to the next.

Awilson0 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of Edits: I disagreed with the comment stating that discussion of lactobacillus regarding vaginal health should have been moved to the "Vaginal Tract" subheading that is already present in the article. One important use of Lactobacillus is to control urinary and vaginal infections, so I described the ways in which lactobacillus acts as a probiotic to accomplish this (ie: secreting lactic acid and hydrogen peroxide). Hence, it is appropriate to place this information under the "Lactobacillus" subheading. I improved the flow of information, and made edits regarding factual correctness. Also, I removed Medline as a source since the same information was found on an NCBI article.