User talk:Ascrimge/Nitrogen flow through the Metabolism

Overall: The grammar of the work is not up to par with a journal article; try to word your thoughts in a more precise manner and check punctuation. Title: Username should not be part of title Intro: This intro is all over the place, it begins to touch on the parts of the nitrogen cycle but not all. This is supposed to open up the paper so give the basic steps and overall importance of the cycle. Explain how nitrogen is important in metabolism. The Nitrogen Cycle: This part is confusing to read, try to explain the cycle better. Nitrate Pathway through plants: This really needs to be revised; it’s full of grammar issues Nucleic Acid Synthesis and Ammonia Poisoning: At the least, you need to define this term.

Second Review of Team 4 by Team 13
The team explained some ambiguous concepts and terms from the first draft. Team 13 also erased unclear phrases, explained ambiguous terms, fixed the shape of the article, and repaired the content listing of the article. The reactions were improved, explained, and displayed in more appropriate format. The name of the enzymes that is responsible for the reaction was added and it was followed by an explanation of the reaction and it is importance. Those improvements made the article more readable and easier to understand. However, there are new small mistakes associated with the new additions of the article. 1-There are paragraphs that do not have in text citations. A-Nitrate Pathway through Plants B- Nitrogen Storage n Trees C- Assimilation is Other Amino Acids 2-It was not explained how the “Ammonia poisoning” paragraph relates to Nitrogen cycle. 3-In the section “Secondary Nitrogen Process” under Nucleic acid synthesis paragraph, external links would help to understand the topic; however, it does not stand by itself. One or two sentences to relate the content of the links to the article would help in better understand of the article and it is relation to the link.

References The team was also able to include more articles to refer to and fix the old citations, but there are few problems with the new references. Reference 18, 21, 22 were not cited properly. The websites were just listed and not cited. (Rshadid (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC))