User talk:Jairahalindogan/sandbox

A Critique on “Bacterial circadian rhythms”

The Wikipedia page “Bacterial circadian rhythms” is a weak article that fails to provide a clear and unbiased summary of the topic while often closely paraphrasing external sources. In general, the article’s poor organization makes it difficult to follow. Headings are not concise and appear to be ordered arbitrarily. Some sections are significantly longer than others, with convoluted rationalizations that distract the reader from the general ideas. This disparity in section length can be explained by bias. As revealed in the article’s revision history, one of the contributors – Carl Hirschie Johnson – is also the author of a few scientific papers in the references. Unsurprisingly, Johnson’s findings are over-represented. Sections relating to Johnson notably include unnecessary thought processes behind the research. Hence, this article should be rewritten entirely to eliminate bias and provide a clear structure of topics. The “History” section in particular, which details much of Johnson’s work, should be edited so that relevant facts remain. Additionally, the article not only cites biased sources but also closely paraphrases external works too. A striking example is the first paragraph of the article’s “History” section which essentially copies the introduction of a paper that is absent in the references. Although the article succeeds in having all referenced material from relevant peer-reviewed journals, it lacks appropriate sources for some facts and hyperlinks in the reference section.

Jairahalindogan (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

'''Improving "Bacterial Nanowires" '''

Extensive literature on the electrical activity of microbes proves that “Bacterial nanowires” is a Wikipedia article of high notability. In particular, the idea of using electricity generated by nanowires is described in numerous peer-reviewed papers as well as in lecture. Researchers suggest that bacteria with electrically conducive nanowires could potentially be used in microbial fuel cells or in nanoelectronic applications. However, due to outdated sources, the Wikipedia article “Bacterial nanowires” lacks information on the real-world significance of this topic. The article’s short section on Implications and Potential Applications describes just the significance of nanowires within microbial communities. Since this section’s only source dates to 2010, overall the article fails to describe recent findings that greatly expand our understanding of bacterial nanowires as a renewable energy source. As a student editor, I will add a new section to the Wikipedia article that highlights the potential bioenergy uses of bacterial nanowires. This improvement is necessary to emphasize the applicability of nanowires as a possible energy source and provide coverage on a growing field of research.

Jairahalindogan (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Jairah's Peer Review
In terms of structure, it was a good choice to place the new section on “Potential bioenergy uses” after “Implications and potential applications” because they are closely related. However, since they are closely related I suggest instead of creating a whole new header for “Potential bioenergy uses”, instead add it as a sub-header under “Implications and potential applications”.

The content added is relevant to the article, and an important addition since there is lots of evidence in the literature about this topic as seen by the fact that there are six sources within this short addition. However, the part on Shewanella oneidensis and G. sulfurreducens lists what they are capable of but does not seem to mention how they contribute to bioenergy. I would look into and go into more detail about how their functions can be used in bioenergy.

All points are neutral and there isn’t any bias or phrases that suggest bias throughout the added section. The writing is very concise however the paragraph seems more like a collection of facts and is rather disjointed. I would work on trying to connect the ideas together to get a nicer flow to your writing.

All statements were connected to reliable, properly cited journal articles. The added section is supported by six journal articles, which equally contribute to the added section with not one journal article dominating the content added. Most of the journal articles are represented accurately, but the references on Shewanella oneidensis and G. sulfurreducens don’t state anywhere that they can transport electrons along the centimeter-scale distance but rather say a micrometer-scale distance. I would look over these sources again and determine if this statement of centimeter-scale distance is correct or if it needs to be changed to micrometers.

Gsavage1 (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)