User talk:Boyan Tsankov/sandbox

Bacterial Circadian Rhythms Critique

Although the references were properly cited to support claims throughout the article, the page frequently misses citations in key regards. For example, the first two introductory paragraphs lack citations to support their claims regarding the characteristics and cellular prevalence of circadian rhythms. Furthermore, vague terms such as “it was thought” (p.2), “it was believed” (p.3), “several research groups” (p.4) are commonly used and further emphasize the article’s lack of specific references. A citation should be placed after every newly introduced fact, and such vague jargon should be omitted.

The article also lack neutrality in several aspects. Opinionated diction e.g. “conclusion was flawed” (p.3), and “ground-breaking” (p.4) should be omitted. Moreover, the mechanisms behind the daily synchronization of the bacterial circadian rhythm with the environment, and the robustness of these rhythms are under-represented areas of research throughout the page. In addition, the only representatives of bacteria are members of the Cyanobacteria family. Perhaps a section discussing the research of circadian rhythms in Protobacteria should be included.

From a formatting lens, the sections “Relationship to cell division”, and “Global regulation of gene expression and chromosomal topology” do not contain enough information to merit their own headings. The former could be integrated within the information in the “History” section, whereas the latter could be integrated within the “Molecular mechanism of the Cyanobacterial clockwork” section.

Lastly the headings of the 1st and 6th sections lack concision. They could be changed to “History of prokaryotic circadian rhythms” and “Structural biology of circadian rhythm proteins” respectively. Boyan Tsankov (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Optional Survey It was my first experience critically evaluating a Wikipedia article. It was a very useful exercise for discerning which information on wikipedia can be trusted, and with which articles I should exercise a bit more caution. This knowledge I feel can also be used to critique primary literature in academia as well. Boyan Tsankov (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2 - Critique of "Halorespiration

The topic of dehalorespiration is of medium importance in the field of microbial ecophysiology due to its notable amount of primary research exemplified by 710 references on a UBC Summon search. However, I chose to improve this article due to its unrepresentative nature of such current published research. For instance, although the article gives a brief overview of its topic, it fails to provide any further depth in synthesizing the mechanics of bacterial halorespiration with its great ecological significance. Furthermore, although the article briefly mentions TCE as a substrate of dehalorespirers, it fails to note the use of PCB (another xenobiotic pollutant of great importance) as an electron acceptor. Lastly, although the article consists of only five sentences, the 2nd and 3rd sentences remain without a citation. Although the claims presented in those two claims are true, the lack of adequate referencing from primary literature further emphasizes the superficial nature of the article. Therefore, to remedy all the aforementioned faults, I will be adding in a new section titled “Ecological Significance” in which I aim to draw on examples from Dehalobacter Restrictus, and Dehalobium Chlorocoercia to explain the efficiency and mechanism of dehalorespiration in bioremediating levels of toxic anthropogenic pollutants such as TCE and PCB respectively. This section will also incorporate primary research of the general destructive effects of these two pollutants to provide an overt relationship between the mechanics of dehalorespiration and its significance to the health of surrounding ecological communities.

My addition of this section will improve this article by elaborating on the topics of biodegradation, and the use of TCE as a substrate for dehalorespiration mentioned in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the article. It will also introduce and elaborate on the biodegradation of PCB which is an ecologically important, yet unmentioned aspect of dehalorespiration.

The primary sources that I will be using to enhance my article are all independent and unaffiliated with the topic, and are published in peer-reviewed journals, therefore making them viable options to draw from for my edits. Boyan Tsankov (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Original Halorespiration Halorespiration or dehalorespiration is the use of halogenated compounds as terminal electron acceptors in anaerobic respiration. Halorespiration can play a part in microbial biodegradation. The most common substrates are chlorinated aliphatics (PCE, TCE), chlorinated phenols. Dehalorespiring bacteria are highly diverse. This trait is found in some proteobacteria, chloroflexi (green nonsulfur bacteria), low G+C gram positive Clostridia. and ultramicrobacteria. Boyan Tsankov (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Boyan Tsankov's Peer Review
Being as the original article had almost nothing, creating a whole new section was a great idea. As well, the structure within the section is great with good paragraph separation of three subtopics. The title isn’t overly complicated, but perhaps simply “Bioremediation” would be more succinct while still describing the section. PCE and TCE are mentioned immediately afterwards, so they don’t need to be in the title.

The content is great and has a variety of sources. For example, why PCE and TCE are harmful is mentioned, and then the important steps, from PCE and TCE all the way to ethene, are stated. As well, you speak to the bacteria responsible for such dechlorinating effects. One suggestion is to simply mention why PCE and TCE are in the environment in the first place. This would add a little more background to the section.

All the sources are primary sources (research papers) with varying authors, which is great and shows the notability of this topic. However, the reference list is half duplicated making it a little hard to read. It appears as though citations from the “original” and from the “edit” got mingled. A quick clean up would make the reference list a lot nicer. As well, reference 4/8 is incomplete and the doi in reference 13 appears to be incorrect.

The style of writing is also great, because it doesn’t try to persuade the reader to one opinion or the other; it simply states facts and information. Further, the language used is not overly complicated and the sentence structure is easy to read and understand, which it should be for Wikipedia. However, occasionally the sentences feel too short and disjointed, so it might be nice to link some of the sentences together for smooth writing.

TheOpaqueWalrus (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)