User talk:Jesszha/sandbox

Jessica Zhang's Peer Review
In terms of structure, the original bulk of introduction gets broken down into 3 smaller sections: structure, genetics, and applications. These sections are reasonably placed after the section of “history of discover”. The edited article has a much clearer structure and a better flow. For improvement, it might be a good idea to move the “genetics” section, so that it does not cut in between the “structure” and the “application”. This way, the function of cellulosome can be introduced right after the description of its structure. It will make it easier for the readers to follow the logic of the article.

Compare to the original article, the editor chose to elaborate on the genomic characteristics and the application of cellulosome. The two topics gives relevant information, and are highly important for the readers to obtain a generic overview of cellulosome. One possible improvement is to further elaborate the “genetics” section. For example, what are some of the implications of the large gene clusters found in C. cellulovorans? Are those gene clusters seen in other microbes that express cellulose? (See “A Large Gene Cluster for the Clostridium cellulovorans Cellulosome” by Yutaka Tamaru et al., 2000).

The article has a neutral tone, and the added contents provide neutral points of view. There are a few run-on sentences in the “structure” section. For example, the sentence that starts with “the general cellulosome structure consists…”, which can be broken down by adding pauses.

There seems to be some formatting problems with the reference list, but overall, the article draws on well-cited journal articles, and summarizes the main points. The “History” section may need more citation, especially when pointing out the specific details about how C. thermocellum is treated as model organism, and how R. albus has undetected cohesions. Jodymao (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)