Critique/Review: Critique of peer reviewed article
Reviewed by: Melvin Elias
Major: Biology Health Sciences, Tennessee Tech University Cookeville, TN 38501.
Title: Nutritional Requirements of Drosophila melanogaster
Author: E. L. Tatum
Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Volume 25 pages: 490-97.
Overview: The investigation of the nutrients requirements of Drosophila melanogaster were undertaken in the laboratory in connection with the study of the role of diet in eye-pigment development in this insect.
Critique: The article did support the objective, but it did not meet the requirements such as graphs.
Completeness: Overall the paper was written well, easy to follow, and did meet the objective
Problems: The problem with this article is that no charts or graphs were included to support findings.
Benefits: The study was beneficial because it helps individuals who are interested in raising fruit flies for feeding lizards and other reptiles.
Additional Research: The article mentioned different nutrients, which aid the development and growth of fruit flies, which include vitamins B2 and B1.
Article Critique
a. The article had a good continuity and consistency with sticking to the order of events. First the article talked about recent advances in knowledge of the nutritional and vitamin requirements of higher animals, plants and organisms, then discussed it discussed the need of yeast for development and growth.
b. The title of the article did a good job at describing the purpose of the article.
c. The introduction did a good job of leading the reader to the objective statement.
d. There are nine citations in the introduction and all citations support the ojective.
e. Yes, the objective statement was thorough and specific.
f. Yes the methods and materials provided in a separate section but were within the article and were supported by literature references. Preliminary experiments were included in this section.
g. Yes, I could repeat the experiment entirely by following the procedures given in the methods and materials.
h. No, the results were not arranged or organized to follow the same order of events as the methods and materials.
i. The results were presented in a simple way that was easy to follow but they weren’t very thorough
j. The article included tables, but it did not include figures or graphs.
k. Yes, the article does discuss the results, but there is not a separate discussion section
l. The literature cited does support the information given in the introduction.
m. The literature cited supports the results
n. The objective was met, the research supported the objective.
o. Though there were not many citations, yes, the literature cited was taken from good sources that were recent for the period in which the article was researched and written