User talk:InayahM/sandbox

= Assignment 2 Critique =

The Purple Sulfur Bacteria (PSB) Wikipedia article has high notability, yet is not properly presented. PSB are an integral part of certain ecosystems making this topic of importance. Due to this, I have chosen to complete this assignment on PSB. As marked on the talk page of this article, PSB are of high-importance to the Microbiology WikiProject indicating that it is a topic of high notability. Also, many facets of PSB are discussed in different articles found in reliable journals, such as AEM and Nature, as well as multiple academic books, adding to its notability. Yet, the article, as written, lacks distinct subtopics and credible sources, and could be improved by further exploring different aspects of PSB.

Currently, the article consists of a large lead section that discusses a general overview of PSB, a summary of their metabolism, and the requirements of their habitat. The article’s organization and clarity would improve by introducing subtopics. Adding an “Ecology” section would allow the discussion of optimal habitat features to be moved from the lead to this new section. Additionally, this information about PSB habitat lacks reliable sources, and should be updated with the correct citations. Alongside this, I plan to discuss different ways that PSB interact with their environment and with other organisms to demonstrate their significance. To start, I will address one article’s findings regarding how PSB display a competitive edge within their environment; by increasing the surrounding water temperature to create optimal growth conditions for themselves, they are able to outcompete other non-thermotolerant species. Additionally, I will talk about the contribution of PSB to the recycling of nutrients within lakes. Overmann (1966) touches upon how PSB contributes to phosphorous cycling whereas Gemerden and Mas (1995) discusses how PSB contributes to the Carbon cycle. I will use an example of PSB interaction with heterotrophic organisms discussed in a paper by Overmann (1966) to explain how PSB growth patterns can impact other organisms, such as heterotrophic bacterioplankton. Lastly, I believe that the comprehensiveness of the article could be improved with the addition of diagrams, and pictures to supplement the text.

InayahM (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

= Assignment 1 – Phototroph Article =

The Phototroph Wikipedia page contains both elements of a good article, and of an in-progress article. The page starts off with a clear introduction to the topic, and defines, in easy to understand language, the basic idea of a Phototroph. In this opening paragraph, no bias is presented, and instead, facts are discussed from a neutral standpoint; these are all features of a good introduction. However, despite including a lot of important facts, there is an absence of reliable citations. Using references to well-known journals to support the existing facts would increase the credibility of this article, thus increasing the overall quality of it as well. The introductory paragraph also lacks a cohesive flow of ideas; the organization of the paragraph results in some concepts being presented without a good explanation, or in a fragmented manner. An integrative rewrite of the paragraph by one person who incorporates the already existing material is one way to resolve this issue. The progression of the article breaks up different subtopics into new headings which is an indicator of good article writing. However, the History section of the article is very short (of only one sentence), and is quite irrelevant to the overarching topic; it does not need its own subtopic as it could easily be either put into the introduction or left out altogether. Lastly, the many hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages, and the supplementary flow chart are appropriate and helpful to enhancing the audience’s understanding about this topic and related ones.

InayahM (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Inayah's Peer Review
Overall the article edit is very well done. As I was reading the article as a whole, I found it was very cohesive and flowed well as I couldn’t differentiate the parts that were added from the original. The addition of subheadings (i.e. Ecology, which is then split into Habitat and Ecological Significance) was a nice addition as it provided structure which was lacking in the original piece.

The content is related to the topic and well written. The “Ecological Significance” section provided well-supported information and examples where needed which I feel enhances the quality of the article.

A quick look at the sources listed indicates all are peer-reviewed and support the content added.

The information was presented in a colloquial manner, not similar to that of a research paper which is filled with jargon. I think this is appropriate for a wiki article as it is simple enough for those with some background knowledge to understand. If there were any terms, the corresponding wiki pages were linked so that the reader could easily refer to them as needed.

As mentioned, I thought the edit was well written and thus, I just have a couple minor suggestions for improvement. Within the “Ecological Significance” section, the third sentence seems to have a grammatical error—rather than “Within their environment, they share a significant role…”, I think it should be “… they play a significant role…”. Furthermore, I believe the second sentence in the last paragraph has inconsistent tenses—“… purple sulfur bacteria adopted a new characteristic in which they are able to use their metabolism…”. Additionally, there’s a link to a wiki page that doesn’t exist within the same section—a link to phosphorous cycling. It would be best to remove this and simply make this text as I feel it doesn’t serve any purpose at the moment.

Theottlo (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)