User:WeepingBritney/Photosynthesis student review

Breadth (2) Does the article cover its field completely? Yes but it doesn't go into depth. Are all the common terms of the field defined? Yes Are all the basic concepts of the field described? Yes Were important topics missed? The article doesn't describe electron transport in great enough detail. It also doesn't specifically describe photosynthesis on a molecular level. Depth (1) Amount of detail appropriate for topic- Yes. I think that more diagrams would make the text easier to follow and understand. History given? Provides information about the discovery of photosynthesis. It also talks about the evolution of photosynthetic systems, although this is not cited. Readability/Writing (2) Is the writing clear? Somewhat. I thought that the section about C4 and Cam was confusing and didn't give enough background information. Is the writing interesting? Yes Is the writing organized, good flow? I don't like it. They don't really describe photosynthesis. I feel like the article talks about a lot of other things initially and never really focuses on the process of photosynthesis. Architecture to the article (beginning, middle, end)? Yes Is the writing redundant? No Learnability (2) Is the level of explanation good for undergraduate students? Not too simple or complex? This information is appropriate for a high school student but it just doesn't go into enough details to be useful for a college student. Is the teaching well-organized, clear progression of topics? There is a clear progression of topics, but I didn't think that the order was very good. Figures (1) Are there Figures at all? Figures are terrible! There are only a few. Are the Figures clear? No Are the Figures three-dimensional?Yes Are the Figures consistent with each other? One picture is of a leaf and the other is of a diagram of a thylakoid. The thylakoid picture is confusing and the writing is too small to read. There should be a diagram of the Z-scheme or of the entire process but there isn't. References (3) Are there references? Yes Are the references recent? Several from 2002 until 2005. Are the references from "good" journals? Mostly information from textbooks. Quality (1) How up-to-date is the article? When would this article have last been an up-to-date review of the field? It is up to date. Glaring errors, minor errors, and misleading statements? None that I could tell How precise and quantitative is the article? Not precise about exact processes. For example doesn't mention photophosphorylation or the amino acids involved.

Britannica Review: Was much better than Wikipedia. Went into more details Breadth (2) Depth (2) Readability(3) Learnability(3) Figures (2) References (2) Quality(3)