User talk:Antyrahdeguzman/sandbox

The Wikipedia article on anaerobic respiration has undergone multiple edits which have removed various jargon and added citations in order to make the article easier to comprehend. In the “talk” page, there were numerous posts discussing the difference between anaerobic respiration and fermentation. Although the information in the “Anaerobic respiration as compared with fermentation” section is accurate, the entire section does not have any references. Additionally, the section can include that fermentation is a type of an anaerobic pathway and can specify the difference between the energy yields from both pathways.

There are other paragraphs in the article that are not cited but the references that have been given are relevant and reliable. After checking the second citation in the article, it is apparent that the cited sentence about the main methane formation pathways in the Wikipedia article is a very close paraphrase from Section 3.1 of the Sapart et al. paper. This sentence can either be reworded or removed completely because it does not provide any further understanding for the section. In the segment on “Ecological importance”, both positive and negative viewpoints about the effects of methanogenesis are presented. In contrast, the section on “Economic relevance” talks about the ability to generate electricity through anaerobic respiration but does not provide any information about the limitations of the process, which is the main conclusion in the cited source. To improve the article, the most meaningful revision would be to add more references, especially to the paragraphs without any cited sources.

Antryrah Deguzman's Peer Review
The placement of the edited text is appropriate because it expands significant points in the introductions which segways into the following paragraph on genome structure by introducing applications. The writing style was comprehensive with neutral content and tone. The edit also expanded ideas with appropriate examples and details from reliable resources. However, the idea in the first paragraph on “model organisms” is overrepresented and can be combined at the beginning of the paragraph to be more concise and enhance structure.

When introducing the topic on bacteria being studied in electronics and optics, the edit only lists some examples when there should be a focus on significance. For example, one could have included how the Halobacterium bacteriorhodopsin use solar energy for proton production to derive a biological sensitized solar cell (BSSC) which saves the use of fossil fuels. This also connects with the introduction of bacteriorhodopsins and addressing applications of Halobacterium.

The author needs to pay more close attention when taking ideas from resources and making sure they are represented accurately. When referencing the first source, the study mentions that the Halobacterium have a RNA polymerase II “like” transcription system. However, the edit states a full “eukaryotic polymerase and translation machinery.” In addition, with the third reference, the edit makes more of an absolute saying that gas vesicles “can” display epitopes in order to initiate an immune response where the study suggests there is only the “potential” for this. Pavneet Kalsi (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)