User talk:Tyleryan/sandbox

Assignment 1: Critique a Wikipedia Article - Phototroph

A major weakness of the Phototroph Wikipedia article is its lack of citations. The article frequently states facts without including a reference; most notably, the entire introductory paragraph does not have a single citation, even using the phrase “it is a common misconception” to reference an unnamed source of information without actually citing who believes this misconception. Moreover, with only six total references, the article often conjoins two at a time to verify just a single fact, adding to the infrequency of verified content. For example, four of these references are used to cite just two facts.

Though the article does a good job of using independent and unbiased sources such as publications from NCBI, these sources can be more relevant to the topic. For example, reference four is a very specific publication that is completely irrelevant to the general fact it is verifying; I would recommend using a more appropriate citation in this case such as a textbook.

Despite its shortcomings in citations, the content of the article is relevant to the topic, using appropriately lay language when defining its more complicated terms. The article also correctly places emphasis on the more important “Photoautotroph” section and uses sufficient detail, however lacks balance in significantly underrepresenting both the “Photoheterotroph” and “History” sections by providing only a couple sentences without any examples.

Overall, I believe this article could be greatly improved by including more citations, ensuring these citations are appropriate and topic-relevant, and adding more content to its underrepresented sections.

Tyleryan (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2: Choose your Wikipedia Article - Chemotaxis

For this assignment I have chosen to edit the section “Eukaryotic chemotaxis” from the “Chemotaxis” Wikipedia article. I will be editing this article due to its lack of verified content yet high notability. In my literature searches, I have found chemotaxis to be the topic of numerous papers from notable journals (PNAS and Nature, for example) that have high impact factors, indicating their reliability and esteemed reputation in the academic community. More specifically, I have already found the three papers I wish to use as citations in my edits, showing the significant coverage of chemotaxis. These primary sources are all independent of chemotaxis and have no affiliation with the subject, allowing me to use them as appropriate references in my Wikipedia edits.

In the section “Eukaryotic chemotaxis” there is a severe lack of facts that are verified -- even the Wikipedia volunteers have noticed this issue and have placed a maintenance tag on the page asking for more citations. In the first paragraph, the article explains the differences between eukaryotic and prokaryotic chemotaxis, however does not include any reliable citations. I will address this issue by referencing Levine and Rappel (2013) who explained how eukaryotic chemotaxis is based on a spatial recognition system as compared to the temporal sensing mechanism employed by most prokaryotes. Additionally, although the Wikipedia article briefly touches on the mechanism of motility, it does not use any sources in the paragraph. I plan on using a paper by Insall (2013) that has elaborated on the role of pseudopods in eukaryotic chemotaxis and how these cytoplasmic protrusions may result in directed cell movement by the relative favoring of certain stimulated pseudopods over others. Lastly, I noticed that the article section does not mention how some eukaryotic cells have displayed chemotaxic “memory” as it moves along a gradient. Referencing a paper by Skoge et. al (2014), in my edits I will include how some eukaryotic cells have exhibited this “memory” ability in order to avoid reversals and continue in its given direction along a gradient.

Tyleryan (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Al Rohet's peer review

The placement of the edited section was unchanged from the original version of the article which retained proper development of ideas, mainly the transition from bacterial to eukaryotic chemotaxis. The initial contrast allowed a good introduction to the eukaryotic process, however beginning its actual description in a new paragraph would help further clarify the readers about the distinction between the two processes.

The section of the article was used to describe chemotactic protocols in eukaryotic cells. The edit successfully clarified information about detection of chemical gradients and receptor responses which was vague in the original version. Relevant information about sensing environmental gradients in eukaryotic chemotaxis was clearly and concisely explained. Chemotactic memory, which is an important aspect of the process, can be discussed more to help readers comprehend the entire mechanism. Additionally, the effect of chemotactic-repellants, present in the unedited version can be added. Examples of effectors in unicellular eukaryotes seems slightly off-topic because other components of chemotaxis, i.e. receptors and signalling pathways, are not elaborated with corresponding examples. All other information were relevant and important in reflecting the topic of this section. Examples of the importance of chemotaxis in immune cells was well-explained and did not have additional irrelevant details unlike the original version.

Multiple sources have been used to extract the information. The sources included peer-reviewed journal articles and were reliable. Bacterial response to changing chemical gradient via chemotaxis is well described, however, there are no cited sources associated with the information and can be added. Overall the information was presented in a structured manner with a flow describing the process of eukaryotic chemotaxis and continuing on to examples of its importance. Details were concise with appropriate depth especially in the description of polarised receptor activation. Everything was easily understandable and had a neutral perspective which was aided by the use of diverse sources.

--Rohet31 (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)