User talk:Ichigo Ryu/sandbox

Assignment #1 - Critique of Peptidoglycan

From the “Peptidoglycan” wikipage, I got an understanding of peptidoglycan through a neutral voice. However, there are some major changes I would suggest. Although there are some appropriate citations and good hyperlinks, there is still a dearth of citations throughout the article. In the introduction alone, I would suggest citing more due to hard facts, such as the first, second, third, eighth, and ninth sentences. Of the references, there were three that were either inappropriate, not linked, or outdated. Reference #5 is referring to a website homepage. For this, I would suggest something like a peer-reviewed journal instead. #9 needs to be linked correctly, perhaps with another citation. #12 is outdated, and I would suggest a newer additional citation. The second major change focuses on the "Introduction". I highly suggest the author to completely change the first paragraph, as there is blatant plagiarism. I would either show the citations for each sentence or try to paraphrase, by re-writing a draft from notes rather than directly from the source. The third major change is the underrepresentation of some viewpoints. One particular place is the medical diagnosis that is regularly used to identify/screen for bacteria in infected patients. Perhaps adding information about the types of screens used via peptidoglycan maybe helpful. One particular stain that should be mentioned is the “Gram stain”, and its effect on peptidoglycan. The author could potentially describe in detail how the thickness of peptidoglycan will result in the retention of a violet dye or a pink coloration. ~~~~ Duke Sheen (aka. Ichigo Ryu) Ichigo Ryu (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment #2 - Evaluation of Clostridium botulism

The article I have chosen is "Clostridium botulism", and I believe that this article has notability. One reason is due to the "high importance" rating, but a low "C" rating; this means that this article contributes a depth of knowledge and has some accurate information and references, but lacks important concepts and require some editing. Another reason is due to the significant coverage on the topic, including a number of reliable peer-reviewed sources. For example, on the PubMed database alone, there are over 100 peer-reviewed articles on "C. botulism". It should be also noted that there is an abundance of secondary sources, like credible websites, review articles, and meta-analysis journals. In addition, the sources being used are independent of the subject being written. Overall, I conclude that "Clostridium botulism" has notability.

Although there is a number of reliable sources referenced, there are some deficiencies, such as the need of updated references, clarification in some areas of the article, and coverage of some missing details. One such example, in the subhead "Botulinum toxin types", there is a lack of any references to toxin type H, which was characterized in 2014. Another example is the clarification of the LD50 toxicity of “C. botulism”, as the current toxicity suggests a range between 1-3 ng/kg. Another additional example is lack of coverage on other types of botulism, such as inhalation, iatrogenic, and adult enteric infectious botulism.

One area I would edit is the "Diagnostic Methods" section. Although there is a secondary source, due to the importance of this section there is a need for more references to back up the claims being stated here. There is also a lack of hyperlinking to other articles, such as Guillian-Barre Syndrome and myasthenia gravis, and a lack of details. For example, this section does not mention anything about "serum assays" that are often used, as well as other diagnostic methods. Furthermore, there is no mention of how the diagnosis of "botulism" may change depending on the type of pathogenesis. Other areas that need improvement or an additional section include the pathogenesis, epidemiology, and current vaccines and treatment plans. Ichigo Ryu (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ichigo Ryu's Peer Review

Overall, I found the edit of the Clostridium botulinum Diagnosis section to be cohesive, and added the much needed depth to this section. I appreciated how the diagnostic methods were separated for the different types of botulism toxins, since this allowed myself, as a reader, to easily read the article since the information was not jumbled together.

Looking at the article as a whole, I felt it would in inadequate to place this section at the bottom, since readers would be jumping from ‘Other’, to ‘Growth condition’, to ‘Diagnostic methods’. Placing the edit following something more relevant to diagnostics, such as pathology, would be best; this would be more streamlined for the readers since the two topics are highly related.

As for writing style, the presentation was in a fluid manner. There are some instances where I felt some links could be added, which would link to other related Wikipedia articles. For instance, linking to the article on the heptavalent botulism antitoxin would be adequate, in case readers wanted further information regarding this topic.

The content added was much more thorough than before. However, the addition of the manufacturer of the treatments available was unnecessary, and casts a preferential light on them. Rewording the sentences to something more general, such as “Currently, a heptavalent botulism antitoxin is used to treat… ” would be best. Aside from this minor detail, I did feel the edit was presented with a neutral point of view.

The sources that were used were all reliable and relevant, either from scholarly journals or government sites; the main important information is backed up by references. There is a minor issue with some citations, as one of them (source #4) is improperly linked; the statement in the edit did not match that of the reference. As well, the last source did not link anywhere. Updating these to their proper references would be helpful.
Vivientan (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)