User talk:Aport007
Article Critique
[edit]Topic: K562 Cells
This entry could use strengthening, but that is expected due to the article being ranked as a cell biology stub. The entry really only consists of two paragraphs, which could be considered the lead. Some of the main issues seen with this entry are language, length, flow and organization, and lack of enhancing materials such as images and diagrams.
To start, one way to strengthen this entry would be to edit the lead. The information that is present seems helpful, and has the potential to be a good start to a working lead, but the information needs to be organized differently. The way the information that is present is organized makes it a little difficult to follow, because if is more of ideas all strung together, rather than a working flow of information. Perhaps one place to start would be to try to arrange the information in terms of definition material first, then may be supplemental material that expands on the definition after, such as characteristics of the K562 cells.
A second way to strengthen this entry could be to use headings and subheadings to enhance the organization of the material. Good organization makes it easier for the reader to follow the material. Although this entry does not contain an abundance of words, I feel as though it does contain a lot of different information, that could fall under different categories. Some categories that might be helpful are history of the cells and where they came from, characteristics of the cells, implications of using the cells, uses of the cells, as well as pros and cons to this cell line.
Lastly, the entry could benefit from the addition of images and diagrams to help elaborate and clarify some of the material, because people learn in different ways, and images and diagrams are helpful for people who are visual learners. In addition to these images and diagrams, the entry could benefit from the overall expansion of information in order to provide the reader with more information on K562 cells.
Despite these constructive critiques, there were many aspects of the entry that I found to be done well. To start, I fell that the entry lacked persuasion statements such as "the best" or "the most important", and because of this, the entry seemed to be neutral and absent of biased thoughts and comments on the topic. Perhaps to make it more clear that the entry lacks bias, the writer could add pros and cons of the cell line to make it evident that they do not favor this cell line.
Another aspect of the entry that I found beneficial was the links that the contributor(s) added to topics that were not explained in the entry, but that could be helpful to refresh on, or look into more. Some of these topics include fusion genes and bcr:abl. These links help with the clarity of the topic by helping eliminate confusion of topics within K562 cells that someone may not understand. These links are also efficient and save someone time from going to a different browser and looking the pages up for themselves. The links also help prevent bogging down the entry by filling it with a bunch of definitions of all the key factors and elements that play into K562 cells. By adding links, it seemed to me that the contributor(s) was trying to prevent confusion.
In addition to these positive aspects, the entry also contained a decent amount of references for the short length of the entry. Upon inspection, the references seem to be reliable as most of them are cited as journal articles. Also, the contributor(s) did a good job of allowing the reader to be able to answer "who said that?", well besides may be the first sentence, perhaps that could use a reference, but other than that, the material seems to be referenced well. Another positive aspect of the reference section is that the links seem to work to bring me to the original material if I want to evaluate the article myself or read into the subject more, however, I do not have full access to all of the articles that were used.
As a final note, it is hard to tell if the contributor(s) plagiarized by close paraphrasing or using the original author(s) words because I cannot access the full articles, so it is hard to compare all of the information.
WHAT I PLAN TO CHANGE:
I plan to try to make this entry flow to be better understood by readers rather than a list of facts and characteristics about K562 cells. In addition to this, I would like to add headings and subheadings to make the entry easier to navigate, and locate the information you are looking for more easily. As for information to add from new papers, it seems that the majority of the new papers revolve around K562 cells playing a role in the cell cycle or chromatin remodeling.
Some of the papers I plan to draw information from are as follows...
Poli, A., Fiume, R., Baldanzi, G., Capello, D., Ratti, S., Gesi, M., Manzoli, L., Graziani, A., Suh, P., Cocco, L., & Follo, M.Y. (2016). Nuclear localization of diacylglycerol kinase alpha on K562 cells in involved in cell cycle progression. Journal of Cellular Physiology. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcp.25642/epdf
Fan, Y., Lu, H., An, L., Wang, C., Zhou, Z., Feng, F., Ma, H., Xu, Y., & Zhao, Q. (2016). Effect of active fraction of Ericocaulon sieboldianum on human leukemia K562 cells via proliferation inhibition, cell cycle arrest and apoptosis induction. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 43, 12-20. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668915301150
And others