User talk:Cjiang80/sandbox

Article’s talk page Sentence:

The article's talk page clears up any distinctions between terminology.

Article's talk page Paragraph:

The author asks questions regarding the definition of disphotic zone vs aphotic zone, how much of a synonym is epipelagic to photic, and the difference between euphotic and photic. He/She believes that epipelagic and photic are quite different because the photic zone is the sunlit zone where enough sunlight penetrates for photosynthesis. He states aquatic plant life flourish there and the depth alters on the daily. According to the author, epipelagic just means waters not the surface and have no guarantee of having sunlight, therefor it cannot be regarded as the same as photic zone. Cjiang80 (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Cjiang80 (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Peer review of Photic Zone article draft
Dear Cjiang80, I have read your draft and compared it to the current version of the Photic Zone article, and I have the following comments for you:

Lead

The lead section should reflect the entire content of the article. You should add more information to your lead section as to encompass the article’s other sections. For example, information about the nutrient uptake is missing from the lead, as well as some of the information contained in the current version of the article published on wikipedia. Make sure that your lead section is a good overview of the entire article.

Structure

The article is broken down into photosynthesis and nutrient uptake, which I think is a good layout. I would also include another section describing the types of life in the photic zone.

However, the layout of information inside of the two sections is confusing - partially because each section is one long paragraph, but also because there are many sentences, and the transition between sentences does not always make sense. I suggest breaking up the sections into smaller paragraphs, with 2-3 sentences, as well as re-ordering some of the sentences so that your paragraphs can be read more fluidly.

Some of the information in the sections would make more sense to be in the overview section (or maybe even the lead), such as the sentences about the depth of the photic zone. For example, I think the following sentences should be in the overview section: Ninety percent of marine life live in the photic zone that is around two hundred meters deep. The depth of the photic zone depends on the transparency of water. If the water is on the clearer side, the euphotic zone can become very deep. If it is very murky, it can be only fifty feet deep. “Majority of ocean life occur in the photic zone, the smallest ocean zone in water volume. It can be seen that the photic zone, although small, has a large impact to those who reside in it.” (this should likely be merged with the sentence above)

The last sentence in the photosynthesis section (“The reason why phytoplankton production is so important is because it plays a prominent role when interwoven with other food webs.”) seems out of place to me, and I would suggest removing it, or shortening it.

There is a sentence specifically about photosynthesis in the nutrient uptake section, which should be moved into the photosynthesis section (“Photosynthesis produces ninety percent of Earth’s gaseous oxygen and phytoplankton produces more of it.”)

Uncommon words (such as phytoplankton, diatoms, cryptomonads... ) should be linked to other wikipedia articles, so make sure to do this in your final draft.

There are many small grammatical mistakes in your draft. I would suggest visiting the Communications Lab in the CULC to fix these.

Balance of Coverage

For instance, one of your sources focuses a lot on phytoplankton, and you mention the phytoplankton a lot in your article. Maybe there are other types of organisms that live in the photic zone that you are not including.

There are some contradictory sentences in your article: In the photosynthesis section, first, you say that “The photosynthesis rate exceeds to respiration rate because [...]” but afterwards you say “Moreover, the respiration rate is actually greater than the photosynthesis rate.” “Due to biological uptake, the photic zone has relatively low layers of nutrient concentrations (Litchman). As a result phytoplankton don’t have enough nutrients due to high water-column stability [2]. Upwelling carries nutrients from the deep waters into the euphotic zone to strengthen phytoplankton growth. Processes including resuspension, such as remixing and upwelling eventually bring nutrient rich wastes back into the photic zone. The Ekman transport additionally brings more nutrients to the photic zone.” (when reading this, I am confused. Does the photic zone have a good amount of nutrients, or not?)

Neutral Content

The tone of the article is neutral, and you do a good job of being objective. However, given that you only take information from two sources, it is possible that you are not representing all the possible viewpoints about the subject.

Reliable Sources

The first source you cite is reliable, however it appears to focus on the perspective of the phytoplankton. The second source you cite is a website, which does not count towards this assignment. I would suggest replacing this source with a review article, or a textbook, that talks about the photic zone.

When citing sources in your article, remember that wikipedia format is to use in-line numbers, not the author’s last name. You disobey this in the Nutrients uptake section when you write (Litchman) instead of using “[1]”.

Also, remember that every sentence in your article must be attributable to a reliable source. In your article, you should place the citation at the end of the sentence or paragraph that uses information from the cited source. But in your article, the lead sentence does not have a citation, the Photosynthesis section has a single citation for an entire paragraph (and it is placed in the middle of the paragraph, thus any information after the citation is considered not cited), and the nutrient uptake section also has many sentences that do not have citations.

Also, you should not include the “retrieved” date in your citations. It is recommended to omit these.

I hope these comments are helpful. Agauker3 (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)