User talk:Chkathryn/sandbox

Franco's Peer Review
At first glance, your group’s draft is presented nicely with new subsections and headers, showing signs of good organisation. The lead section is constructed logically and concise. You were able to summarise the main points into a single, easy-to-understand, paragraph. Language is neutral and is a good segue for the rest of the article. The only thing missing from the lead section is an image of what the DCM looks like (you can try to use an image like the graphs we've seen in class).

Measurements. The sentence “This may have caused large miscalculations…” could be reworded to be more concise and neutral. The entire measurements section is sourced from a single citation. My suggestion is you could try to find different ways people have been able to measure the DCM. I like the use of images in this section, as it adds to the visual presentation.

Location and formation. I like how most of the information is presented. There are a lot of sources used for creating this section, creating a neutral viewpoint. Lots of examples but organised in a logical way. One way you can improve this section is to try to make it more concise. For example, the sentence “Other adaptations of phytoplankton, such as the ability of some phytoplankton species, such as diatoms and certain cyanobateria, to regulate their own buoyancy” doesn’t make grammatical sense, and could be reworded. There are many filler words and you could try to cut the fluff wherever necessary.

Composition. Able to create a neutral viewpoint by providing adequate sources, but organisation can be improved. The Indian Ocean paragraph contains redundancy and could be reworded. There’s not much substance and can be added upon. You could talk about the Pacific Ocean in the “Oceans” section since it is the biggest ocean in the world, but that’s a personal suggestion. Using “much more” to describe composition of DCM can be improved; try saying “significant portion”. Don’t say “overall” in the lake Tahoe section, it sounds like a conclusion and creates bias.

Ecological implications. First sentence could be reworded to be more concise. I assume this section is a work in progress because it appears you are generalising the DCM by observing characteristics in the North Sea, giving a biased perspective. Give a more broader perspective by examining ecological roles of the DCM in other locations.

Overall, I’m impressed with the content your group was able to organise together. Aside from obvious grammar and concise improvements, try to avoid words like “instead”, “thus”, “in addition”, “generally”, “may”, “to that of”, “due to”, “incredibly”, “overall”, etc. Keep it concise wherever possible. Don’t say “were", “was” if it's not past tense. I like the use of hyperlinks to redirect the reader to other Wikipedia articles, based on keywords. However, you don’t need to link a keyword twice within the same section since it is redundant. For example in the "Oceans" section, you linked coccolithophorids three times, which is unnecessary.

Juan Prieto (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW by Harjot Bhandol
DEEP CHLOROPHYLL MAXIMUM: Measurements Location and formation Composition
 * "cannot be observed using remote sensing methods” what are remote sensing methods?
 * “This may have caused large miscalculations of primary productivity …” this sentence on its own is a bit confusing (I had to read it multiple times to understand what you meant, perhaps combine it with the previous sentence to be more concise. Another thing to consider though, Is this information relevant to DCM?
 * Describing the various other things that a CTD measures is not necessary (the hyperlink is sufficient).
 * Consider changing the heading “measurements” as I assumed you would be discussing the various depth measurements of DCM here when you are really discussing the METHODs used.
 * “chlorophyll counts” is this correct phrasing? How does one count the amount of chlorophyll? (do you mean to say chlorophyll content?)
 * “some studies have found”… avoid making claims on behalf of unnamed groups of people.
 * “Some studies have found that the depth of the DCM is best predicted using light attenuation factors rather than temperature profiles”…
 * You never discussed temperature profiles in relation to DCM prior to the statement above.
 * The paragraph before this statement is already discussing light attenuation so creating this separate paragraph is a bit confusing and overly wordy.
 * “due to great diversity of lakes”… this needs to be elaborated perhaps restructure to “given that lakes are diverse in ….” As “lake diversity" is ambiguous.
 * “some phytoplankton species intentionally move to and from deeper,….” provide examples of the phytoplanktoon communities.
 * “The composition of microorganisms present in the DCM varies significantly with location and season” You’ve used this sentence twice verbatim.

Overall, your paragraphs should be able to stand alone and still make sense. As such I would suggest integrating,for example, "lake superior" more often into the lake superior discussion as at times I forget you were referring to lake superior details in specific, especially when you change paragraphs. Also I would work on being more concise. Consider joining sentences. Harjot Bhandol (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Gan's peer review
Overall great article to add to the existing stub. Some of your methods and wording should be elaborated further such as “…using remote sensing methods”. The mention of the plurality of methods should be an indication to include some specific methods or sampling techniques. In the second paragraph of “Location and Formation” it starts out by saying “ Some studies…”, Since only 1 reference was mentioned, then the specific study should be directly referenced, if there are multiple studies then they should be mentioned and not generalized. In that same paragraph, it was already mentioned in prior paragraphs so I believe you can just merge those sections to avoid redundancy. You should also specify in the last paragraph in “Location and Formation” which cyanobacteria alter their buoyancy during migration, because you directly mention “these species…” therefore you should have an idea which cyanobacteria can or cannot migrate (mostly bloom forming cyanobacteria migrate).

Some minor edits include:

- A rosette is not classified as an “underwater vehicle”.

- It should be DCM’s and not DCMs

- You’ve used this line twice exactly "The composition of microorganisms present in the DCM varies significantly with location and season”

- Accessory pigments have been brought up multiple times, not once has an example been provided, sicne different locations require different accessory pigments, such as chl-b or carotnoids.

Tina's Peer Review
Overall Good job putting this together. I advise putting the measurements section under the composition section because readers may want to know more about what the DCM is before how it is measured. Some of the wording could be rephrased for clarity or neutrality.

Introduction is clear and concise

measurements "tens of meters" can you give a specific numerical range with reference? "large miscalculations" seems to be biased wording "underwater vehicle" I would not classify a CTD as an underwater vehicle Overall, the wording for this section seems clunky

Location and Formation Good amount of references. Language is well written.

composition "The species of phytoplankton present vary with depth within the DCM, which may be due to their different accessory pigments making species specialized to using energy from specific wavelengths of light" I feel that this sentence may be confusing without some more in depth explanation. Also, it is difficult to read sentences broken up with so many commas.

Ecological Implications wording is clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaughingOnion (talk • contribs) 07:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ashley's Peer Review
Overall - great page so far. I would recommend putting measurements below Location and Formation or maybe even below Composition as stuff discussed in measurements dives a little too deep to be at the beginning for someone reading it to understand.

Deep Chlorophyll Maximum - good intro. Maybe explain what chlorophyll is or link to a page that explains it.

Measurements - some long sentences that are difficult to understand. Maybe split them up. Go into more detail. A lot of generalizations are made. Could use a couple more citations. I like the picture.

Location and Formation - great background. I suggest putting this earlier in the page since it does explain background and goes into a bit of chlorophyll description.

Composition - great detail and explanations.

Ecological Implications - could use more detail. You briefly mention biogeochemical cycles at the end, maybe go into detail about what kind of processes are occurring in DCM's. It may also be interesting to delve into how human impact is affecting DCM's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeking104 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Raaghul's Peer Review
Overall- The article is well written, informative, concise and well structured. The intro summarizes all the key points, to the understand the topic, in a short and easy to read paragraph.

Measurements The structure of the second sentence seems a little off. Choice of words isn’t the best for this paragraph. Like “tens of meters”, “large miscalculations”, “underwater vehicle” (this is probably inaccurate). What are remote sensing methods and how are they used? The chlorophyll fluorescence data can also be used apart from cell count, to determine phytoplankton biomass and productivity.

 Location and formation Well referenced and well written. The last paragraph, there are many species of diatoms and cyanobacteria, and not all are big and capable of altering buoyancy. You could say “such as certain species of diatoms and cyanobacteria.”

Composition Has good information, but it can be reworded. Some sentences were hard to read the way it’s currently structured. The ‘Lakes” section could use a generic paragraph describing the composition of any Lake, before going into detail about just the two lakes.

Ecological Implications The paragraph could be reworded, it provides a biased summery of the DCM. “significant export of…” needs to be rewritten with actual data or numbers to impart significance of the export production from the DCM. This section needs more information and has to be elaborated further (how exactly is the DCM impacting the ecology of the marine ecosystem). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raaghul16 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ashley (Shepherd)'s Peer Review
Deep Chlorophyll Maximum - I think this section is informative and concise, though maybe the first sentence could be altered to sound less wordy. It is a good, neutral introduction to the topic. Good references, though I am unsure about linking to a wiki page that doesn't exist (nutricline).

Measurements - Please elaborate on the phrase remote sensing methods, an example might be helpful here. This section needs a few more references. Overall good start and well-written so far, but I think this section could be expanded.

Location and Formation - This is a nice section. Neutral, unbiased description of existing evidence, supported by reliable references. However, I think that when mentioning that some studies have x evidence the statement should be supported by more than one study.

Composition - In this section there is a lot of useful and relevant information supported by substantial reliable references. The statement "The composition of microorganisms present in the DCM varies significantly with location and season" is repeated in the Oceans subsection. Using links to other wiki pages is an important part of this section and I think it benefits the entire page very well. I would consider adding a diagram in this section to summarize the differences. Very good overall.

Ecological Implications - Great start to this section, the main ideas are there and supported by a few references. The section is fairly short and I think that might be because some of the sentences are fairly dense - they contain more than one point and so could be split into two or three sentences to help understanding and the general flow of the article.

Last Comment - I think that overall this is a great starting point for a wiki page on DCM's - be sure to correct simple grammatical and language errors like article use and run-on sentences, and double check references - some dates might be incorrect. My final suggestion is that an image depicting DCMs is used - either comparing composition between oceans and lakes, or a general plot with an arrow pointing out the DCM. Drephehs (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)