User:A.rodrigues1/Rhodovulum sulfidophilum/Rishele Settle Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

A.rodrigues1, and Y Gouin


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodovulum_sulfidophilum
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Group 3! Overall, I thought your wikipedia was well organized and well written. I have a few suggestions, and will review your wikipedia based on the prompted questions.


 * 1) Does the lead section concisely and clearly describe the article's topic?
 * 2) The introductory section I think is well developed. It gives insight into a bit of the physiology, appearance, reproductive, and metabolic systems. I like this because the lead section does not go too into detail but gives a broad outline of the rest of the sections. I do think that maybe a photo of the bacteria may be useful in this introduction, maybe above the classification table, just to give the reader an idea of what it looks like visually.


 * 1) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * 2) I read in the metabolism section that these bacteria release DNA, RNA, and cell aggregates into the medium around them, does this supply nutrients or DOM to other organisms? I think this would be a good thing to touch on – maybe under the significance section if this is the case.
 * 3) Under climate and distribution, I would consider rewording the phrase “anaerobic conditions are necessary” because the sentence after “conduct photosynthesis as an adaptation to survive in anaerobic climates” is contradicting the necessity of anaerobic conditions. Maybe the word “favorable” may be used.
 * 4) If there is information on this, stating where the bacteria are most abundant (specific ocean, region etc.)
 * 5) A link to “growth density” may be useful for the reader.
 * 6) Not too sure if this would apply, but maybe adding a very short section on the bottom of any ongoing research about these, what is not known, etc. I am not sure if there is any information, but I think this would be a good way to end the wikipedia.


 * 1) Is the article written in a neutral tone?
 * 2) I do think the article is written in a neutral tone. The correct tenses are used throughout the article, and there are no argumentative tones within this wikipedia. It reads factual and scientific which I think is the goal!


 * 1) Are the statements in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 2) I think some things should be referenced such as under conservation concerns (the last sentence),
 * 3) Overall, the citations look reliable, and for the most part attributed to what is written in this article.


 * 1) Check a few links. Do they work?
 * 2) Links are great! The subtopics within this wikipedia can get confusing and complex, and therefore I think this page has a sufficient amount of links tat further better the reader's understanding about this bacteria.
 * 3) A few more links in the metabolic section would be very helpful.


 * 1) Is the article well written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * 2) The article is very well written, it is very clear and concise. I do believe this was well written for a more open audience, as it is worded in a way that others who are not familiar with this topic would understand.


 * 1) Is the article well organised - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * 2) The topics are well organized. This wikipedia touches on the biological aspects (taxonomy, metabolism, growth etc), ecological aspects (climate, habitat, distribution), significance of the marine microbe (spider silk, agriculture). This is a very well organized wikipedia.


 * 1) Are images and figures in the article well-captioned?
 * 2) I think the use of another image would be beneficial (a photo of a R.sulfidophilum).
 * 3) The photo inserted under applications I think is well-captioned and also useful in visually interpreting what is being said in this section regarding the spider silk. It visually aids the understanding of the process. The caption is also well written.


 * 1) Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * 2) Yes they do. They adhere to the creative commons regulations.


 * 1) What are the article's strengths?
 * 2) I think a huge strength in this would be how it flows. I think each section is further developed by the one previous of it. I also think that given this is a group project, the flow of it is very consistent and well thought of.
 * 3) The information is very good and well written. It does not go off topic but sticks to the correct information that should adhere to a wikipedia of this topic. All of the content is relevant to R.sulfidophilum.


 * 1) How can the article be improved?
 * 2) I think In terms of the Metabolic section. It is a little bit heavy regarding the terms used. I think mor links to explain what some of these terms mean may be useful to fully understand the metabolic mechanisms. For example, a reader may not understand “milieu” so maybe changing that word to “environment”.
 * 3) There is never too many links to definitions, so the addition of links to define terms such as “flocculation, photolithoautotrophy, etc.” would be beneficial.