User:70.69.125.127/sandbox

 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WIKI: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bridge23/sandbox

-Wrote Speciation, Biotic Interactions (competition), and Food Chain / Web (also included my own image to compliment the material).

 14 MAR 2017: 

Peer Review of Bioluminescent Bacteria: For a first draft, I think this is quite well done. I found a few grammatical errors throughout your article, but those are very easy to fix. However, some information that isn't common knowledge wasn't cited, and therefore more citing needs to be done. For history, I believe a more direct focus on the history of bioluminescent bacteria would be beneficial. You talk about the luciferase enzyme and it's regulatory gene, but it is hard to piece together it's significance until the end. As well, this appears to be more of a research-based history rather than an evolutionary history; maybe be more specific as to what kind of history in the sub header? Everything else seems to be really good! I really enjoyed the symbiosis with other organisms part, where you outline the relationships with other microorganisms.

 23 FEB 2017 

Microecology in the context of Sulfurimonas
 * Present in hydrothermal deep sea-vents, marine sediments, and even terrestrial habitats.
 * Within terrestrial habitats, there are known to play a role in chemoautotrophic processes.
 * Their habitats are dependent on their genes; some members lose genes and some even gain genes to adapt themselves to the environment.
 * The genus Sulfurimonas are able to grow with a variety of electron donors and acceptors, which contribute to their widespread distribution.
 * Sulfide quinone reductases, hydrogenases, and other enzymes allow this genus to colonize in 'disparate' environments.


 * Microorganisms throughout the dark ocean use reduced sulfur compounds for chemolithoautotrophy.
 * reduced sulfur compounds are oxidated (microbially mediated)
 * In deep-sea hydrothermal vents, sulfide oxidation is the most important chemical energy source (important for Sulfurimonas)
 * High concentrations of hydrogen sulfide in deep-sea vents are produced by high temperature seawater-rock interactions
 * Sulfurimonas and Sulfurovum were used in the study due to the fact that they were present in most vent sites, but not in background seawater.
 * May result in competition amongst species for sulfur compounds.

 15 FEB 2017 

Suman's ways to improve an article on "Microecology"
 * Professionalism could be improved, there are instances where informal language is used.
 * "tiny microbes live out their tiny lives".
 * "Looking down at these tiny objects, you are looking at the edge of an entire world of creatures invisible to the naked eye".
 * Needs elaboration on the different types of microorganisms. (i.e. expand on the section of aquatic microorganisms)
 * Lacks specificity of material.
 * Needs to include the impact each type of microorganism has on the environment.
 * i.e. many chemical reactions that occur in bodies of water are catalyzed by the bacteria and microorganisms present.
 * More images can be integrated, as there is only one present.
 * Requires more references / sources as there is only one listed.
 * Information is relatively correct, but information can be questioned

No, everything is referenced to one source, which can question the accuracy of material. Everything in the article was relevant; nothing distracting. Article is neutral and has no bias present. Everything is from an objective point of view, purely factual. Information comes from one reference: an editorial. Underrepresented -> not enough information about different interactions. Citation link does NOT work. No plagiarism present. A lot of information is missing, since elaboration of more complex interactions are required.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?