Talk:Scholander pressure bomb

Untitled
Edits for Writing Class Renamed the page so that it can better be distinguished from pressure cooker bombs. Refined the intro paragraph to be more specific. Included two new subsections on "measurements" and "pressure-volume" curves in order to show some of the practical application of this piece of equipment. I also included some pictures of pressure bombs that my lab has to compliment the general diagram. Pressure-volume curve wiki page was linked to though this page also needs some work done for it. I decided not to give a more in depth protocol as it would be misleading to claim there is one protocol for these types of measurements. Instead I tried to establish the vocabulary one would need to look up a specific protocol with terms like predawn leaf water potential and pressure-volume curves. Brettfred (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation for Writing Class  Is the material organized and focused? The material that is present is organized and focused for what is there. There is only the one paragraph that covers everything so breaking it up and elaborating will be a good starting point. Breaking the article into a couple of sections would allow to include more nuanced detail and increase focus from the vague overview in the intro.

Is the presentation understandable? The single paragraph presentation is understandable but superficial.

Does the article cover the topic comprehensively, partially, or is it an overview? General overview really. The article touches on what the equipment can do but does not go into great depth on the science of the design or the specific techniques that can be employed to determine various aspects of plant water potentials. The link to the water potential page does help but some of the information is outdated.

What is the quality of the evidence? The information is valid but slightly dated. Pressure bombs are used in multiple plant tissue organs. Generally, it is not sap that is exuded from the leaf. Last water potentials are not the alternative method anymore. In most fields pressure bombs are the dominant method.

Does the article have references or is it just someone's knowledge. Were assumptions made? There are three references but two are in the same sentence. The references are dated but are some of the original references for this method and piece of equipment. Adding some references on some of the current methodologies like pressure volume curves would help.

How might the content be improved? Descriptions of the protocols and techniques that this piece of equipment is used would be the most advantageous. This would be most useful to those trying to start using pressure bomb analysis but need a jumping point as to what you can actually use the equipment for. Describing how different plant tissues can be used in the

Quality - Does the article have an introduction? There is no real intro as the whole article is a summary. The first couple sentences could be considered an introduction and extrapolating on them into a proper introduction would help.

Is the introduction understandable and does it summarize the article's key points? The text could be turned into an introduction if more specific sections were added afterwards. The current vagueness in the text could be relieved if it was tied to specific sections that follow.

Is there anything missing? Details on specific approaches that use pressure bombs and what values these approaches and protocols can give would be the most useful. Descriptions of predawn vs mid-day water potentials as well as pressure volume curves would be the most important to include. Some detail on different tissue sampling techniques would also be helpful to readers. Links and citations to different protocols would probably be the most useful to those new to the technique and equipment.

Are there images and diagrams at appropriate places and appendices and footnotes at the end? The diagram is effective but actual pictures of the equipment could be of more use. Additional diagrams and visualization on how to collect and prepare samples could help with understanding as well.

Is the coverage neutral (unbiased)? The text is neutral if dated.

Are facts emphasized? Not a lot of what I would consider hard facts in the text. The brief description of how the pressure potentials are obtained would be the closest but should be emphasized and expanded on more.

Are the references reliable sources? Why or why not All the sources are from the original development of the technique which is great. The links all work as well. The use of one of the citations in the middle of the last sentence seems out of place though.

Changed "pressure sensors" to "methods". A pressure sensor is a device for measuring gas or liquid pressure. A pressure bomb requires the use of one (air pressure gauge in the diagram). There are (apparently, but I'm not an expert on this) two other methods for measuring water potential that are both more complex, which seems to be the purpose of the sentence. 184.4.82.24 (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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): Brettfred.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)