User talk:Cxjyang/sandbox

There are two main problems I see in this article, citation and missing information about the topic.

For the citation, two different styles are being used and they are also under two different sections. This can make the article feel inconsistent and hard to follow. To fix this, I suggest removing the bibliography section, where the citations were all typed out, and instead use the citation tool in the wiki for all citations. There are also many paragraphs and information in the article that are not cited. For example, the article states that “recently the term ‘microbial food web’ has been substituted for the term ‘microbial loop’”, yet the source of this statement is not given.

As for the second problem, a user commented on the talk page of the article that the first sentence of the article is incorrect, as the microbial loop applies to more than just marine microbial food webs. Looking at the article on microbial loop in the microbe wiki and the sources listed on the page shows that the user is correct. In fact, it is not just the first sentence that should be corrected but the entire focus of the article needs to be changed. Currently, the lead, subsections, and reference materials all heavily emphasize on marine ecosystems. Like the microbe wiki page, sections on the other environments should be added to make the article complete and up-to-date. Cxjyang (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2 - Article: Akinete
Currently, the article only has a lead section with a very brief overview of what an Akinete is and its developmental process. The talk page and the edit history also shows no discussion as well as no new edits since the article’s creation in 2007. This is probably due to its low importance rating as well as it being a relatively new article. However, a quick search on the UBC library page shows almost 2000 results for peer-reviewed literature about akinetes, such as the study done on akinete differentiation by Myers et al. These articles provide a wide variety of detailed information such as akinete morphology, potential triggers, identification, and so on.

Looking back at the akinete Wikipedia article, a comparison to Wikipedia articles on other protective structures like the Endospore gives a hint to what is missing. The endospore article has a significantly more detailed lead that contains not just the bacteria involved or a three-sentence overview of development. For example, It expands much more on what the spores protect against instead of just saying it is a “survival structure” like the akinete article. Other topics such as genetic material, triggering factors, and history are also mentioned. The addition of these details to the akinete article lead is especially important due to akinete being the under a clearly defined topic called spores. Without these details, the lead cannot help readers distinguish akinete from spores and other subtopics.

The information needed to improve the lead can be found in the abstract of many akinete studies, such as the Myers article mentioned before. David Adams and Paula Duggan also wrote a detailed article on many aspects of akinetes, such as general properties and structure, extracellular signals, germination, and differentiation. Examples of what can be added to the article are that akinetes include the fact that akinetes are formed by the orders Nostoscales and Stigonematales, they are different from endospores structurally , and they are not resistant to heat.

After refining the lead, subsections on the details added will also need to be created, with the most important ones being Structure and formation.Cxjyang (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yuyan Chen's Peer Review
The placement of the edits is well incorporated into the lead section, where it expands on four aspects of akinetes noted in the original section: definition, characteristics, functions, and development. However, this information isn’t organized into four blocks, and is rather disconnected. The lack of overall structure can be improved by organizing the content in a more sensible order, descending from the most to least important. For instance, the section could begin with the definition of akinetes, and proceeds to talk about its function, development, and characteristics.

The details on akinete’s characteristics enable readers to make logical connections to its function and the use of hyperlinks for scientific terms allows readers who have limited background knowledge to better comprehend the text; but, definitions for states of akinetes (e.g. germinal versus dormancy) should precede mentioning of their relevance to nucleic acid. The content reflects the most important information in all four aspects of akinetes, but none of them holds appropriate explanation and depth. The comparison of akinete’s and endospore’s characteristics is useless, simply describing akinete’s characteristics is sufficient. Another suggestion would be to mention on how akinetes function as food reservoirs as stated in the original section, instead of deleting it. This characteristic is pivotal to cell survival.

The editor adapts a concise writing style with formal tone and simple language that presents the information in a neutral view. However, the use of the phrase “better known” to compare endospores to akinetes should be eliminated to avoid making original arguments. All statements in the edit agree with information from attributed reliable sources such as journals articles and books. There is no close-paraphrasing but the majority of the edit is attributed to source one, which leads to a potentially unbalanced article. The three development characteristics taken from the original section are unsourced. --Yuyan Chen (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)