User talk:Alexandra.Roine

Wikipedia Article Critique: "Phototroph"
Although short, “Phototroph” contains plenty of information. It is neutral and even clarifies a “common misconception”, allowing misinformation to be resolved.

The majority of the information within the article is cited from recent scientific papers and textbooks. These are appropriate sources; however, there are two outdated sources from 1917 and 1946.

“Phototroph” contains unsatisfactory referencing. Though the sources are credible, there are very few references. Each section contains many facts which go unreferenced. There is no referencing in the introduction, and most other sections contain references seemingly for only a single fact. For example, [3] seems only to provide a reference to the term “holophytic” even though it is the only reference in the entire “Photoautotroph” section. It is difficult to tell what [4] is referring to, as it is following the word “an” in a sentence explaining multiple ideas. Reference [5] suggests that the scientific paper describes “an endosymbiosis cyanobacterium”, though the paper does not serve to relate cyanobacteria to endosymbiosis.

The article’s “History” section is also problematic. It contains only one poorly-explained sentence. It should further explain the significance of the change in meaning of the term “phototroph” and provide insight into its outdated references, from 1917 and 1946.

The talk page of “Phototroph” discusses the need for improved definitions and term clarity. It was suggested that the article be restructured for a better description of phototrophy. I agree with these suggestions. More explanations and definitions are required, and an increase in accurate references should accompany these changes.

Word Count: 250

Alexandra.Roine (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Choice: "Picoplankton"
The article “Picoplankton” merits attention for edits. The information it contains is from reliable sources and explains relative sizes, ecological roles, physical features, and identification of picoplankton well; however, the information is basic and excludes some important facts. The article lists two credible sources, one from a textbook-like website, the other a scientific paper. The website addresses picoplankton size, while the scientific paper targets autotrophic picoplankton roles in lakes.

Significant coverage by reliable sources is achieved by picoplankton, as there exist many credible scientific articles discussing the subject. They are from different authors and are reputable in fact-checking. The subject is independent and there seems to be no self-published material. Thus, the article is of high notability. Wikipedia lists this article as Stub-Class and of High-Importance, another indicator of high notability.

I would make improvements to this article by providing additional sources, as well as adding picoplankton’s important role in ocean environments, which the article fails to mention. The article displays facts that aid in supporting this topic, such as productivity in oligotrophic environments and picoplankton surface-to-volume ratio, but there is little direction to the ocean contribution of picoplankton.

Picoplankton exist in all major oceans and have their highest abundances in these environments. They have many features that allow them to survive in these oligotrophic and low-light oceanic regions, such as the use several nitrogen sources, including nitrate, ammonium, and urea. Their small size allows for efficient nutrient acquisition and organism growth.

Picoplankton play a large role in the carbon production of open oceanic environments, which largely contributes to total global production. Their carbon production contributes to at least 10% of total global aquatic net primary productivity. Picoplankton are dominant in biomass in open ocean regions.

Picoplankton also form the base of aquatic microbial food webs and are a source of energy in the microbial loop.

This addition will improve the article because it mentions the important role of picoplankton in oceanic environments, a subject previously barely touched. This would provide greater fact context and fill a significant knowledge gap of the article.

Word Count: 349

Alexandra.Roine (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Alexandra's Peer Review
Added content is structured well. It is broken down into 3 separate paragraphs, each discussing a different way in which picoplankton contribute to the oceanic environment. This makes it easier for other users to add additional content as the different topics are discernable. This also aids in making the added content easier to understand for the reader.

Placement of the added content before the "classification" section would be more useful for the average reader as they would most likely be looking for the function of picoplankton rather than the details of how plankton are classified. This would also allow the article to flow better as it would start with general information (function of picoplankton) and then narrow down into specifics (classification and measurement).

The edited content highlights 3 key ways picoplankton affect oceanic environments, so it does indeed reflect only the most important content. The start of the article mentions that there are heterotrophic picoplankton as well as phototrophic picoplankton. Sources 5 and 7 are used to support the claim that picoplankton contribute to a large amount of carbon production in open oceans. Both of those sources specify that it is phototrophic picoplankton that do so. Addition of this information can be helpful.

The added content is concisely written and only includes information relevant to the subtopic. The appropriate tone is used (neutral). As per instructions, close paraphrasing was used. The information flows well due to separation into paragraphs based on subject, and no jargon is used. The term “microbial loop” may be linked to the corresponding Wikipedia page.

The edits made are all from reliable sources (journal articles), and the edits reflect the statements made in the respective articles. All of the information added can be found in the appropriate sources. There are no unsourced statements. Additional sources that support the existing sources could increase the reliability for the reader, although this is not absolutely necessary since good sources were used. Grewalharvir (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)