Talk:Parasutterella

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ej391209.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Evaluation for PBIO 5180 Writing in Life Sciences

Content Evaluation

As a stub, this article has made a decent start. The material is concise and extremely focused on relaying the crucial information about the genus. Yet due to the lack of detail, it is difficult to discern the organization of the article. The scientific classification section could be more organized by condensing the type species and species into one section. The overall presentation of the article acts as a partial overview of the information on the genus and is understandable and easy to follow, although the lack of information leaves the reader with more questions about the genus and the quality of the evidence. Still, the facts in the article are substantiated by reliable and good evidence based in the scientific literature, including the first papers that published on Parasutterella. The information just needs to be expanded upon to reveal and assure its quality. The article does assume that the reader has a basis in microbiology and knows about the Sutterellaceae family and Proteobacteria phylum. The content of this article could be improved upon by condensing the scientific classification section, clarifying the sentence information, and expanding upon the article. In particular, it would beneficial to add the functionality/metabolic profile of the bacteria in the Parasutterella, more information about its discovery, phylogeny, genomes, and correlations seen in the literature to human health and disease.

Quality Evaluation

This article has a lot of potential and has a solid beginning. The entire sentence of material acts as the introduction and summarizes the key points to the subject matter but does not summarize the key points of the article. The body of the article does not contain several headings or subheadings, and that is something to be added in the expansion of this article. Several details about the phylogeny, bacteriology, how the genus was discovered, and correlations to human health are missing. Images or schematic diagrams of the bacteria in the genus would also be beneficial to add to the article. The footnotes that have been added to the article have been done correctly, and the citations are appropriate. It would be important to cite the second reference as well for the two statements that use the first reference since the first reference is a list of prokaryotes and the publications that established the foundation about each species. The coverage of the facts in the article appear to be neutral. The facts are emphasized and stated without opinion or bias. The references added are reliable sources with the latter two coming from the original published scientific article on the specific species. Ej391209 (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

---

There are some sentences that lack credit and are confusing:

The genus was initially discovered through 16S rRNA sequencing and bioinformatics analysis (a methodology to analyze the microbiome). By analyzing the sequence similarity, Parasutterella was determined to be related most closely to the genus Sutterella and previously classified in the family Alcaligenaceae.

Bioinformatics analysis is not a single methodology to analyze the microbiome (it might not be even focused on the microbiome). The history of the classification of this genus is confusing, first it reports the current classification, then the initial? and a modification later on to go back to the last change to make it current. I don't know how this is done on other pages. Dròpol (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)