User:Jnitsch/Heterotrophic picoplankton/Mattdwill97 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Julia Nitsch


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead has been updated to include changes made by editor.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead sentence is good. The introductory sentence does well to describe the article topic. Initially when I heard picoplankton, I was thinking that they had the size of 10-12 because that is what the prefix pico refers to.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I am not 100% certain where the lead starts and stop; however you may want to include a brief sentence near the start of the article structure and function of picoplankton. Structure= Nucleic acid Content, Function= Biogeochemical cycling
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No the lead is great at giving the reader of the information that is to come.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I find the lead to be well organized, concise and grammatically sound.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic. In fact the information added makes the whole article more complete.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is update; although sometimes the dates of the references reflect the times where more research was done on a topic. For eg. the best nitic oxide references are found in the 80's when the most info was found out out on the molecule.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? At this stage the article seems to be way more complete than before. There will always be room for improvement but given the time constraints I think the information added is more than sufficient. Is there a way to quantify nucleic acid content? I am not too sure. How do you classify this parameter using numbers?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * The content added appears to be balanced and not biased.

Sources and References
'''The sources/references cited are accurate. There is also proper use of the sources in the right places.'''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * The content is presented in a clearly organized manner.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: No images added.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * The article is thorough and well researched.
 * You could probably quantify some of the parameters (such as nucleic acid content, DOM) if you see it fit.
 * The sentence that states that "respire them as inorganic carbon" could be more clear. Respiration usually involves the oxidation of reduced carbon/ organic carbon which then would convert it to inorganic carbon.
 * Overall I think the changes you made to the article were immaculate and will help readers understand the topic more.