User talk:Jipark97/sandbox

Critique of chlorosome

The article is well written in that it gives a clear overview of the structure and importance of chlorosomes. However, some irrelevant information is included. Specifically, in the second heading, the writer gives a detailed explanation of the protocol used in one study. Although this study is relevant to the topic, it is sufficient to state only the results of the study instead of telling the readers about the experimental approaches used. On the other hand, some relevant information is not fully explained in the article. The third heading states that our understanding of chlorosomes could lead to the development of an alternative energy source, but neither includes a source nor expands on the idea. Hence, it is hard to know whether the statement is merely the writer’s personal opinion. This ambiguity can be avoided by mentioning and referencing new studies that focus on the relationship between chlorosomes and energy sources. Last but not least, to aid with the readers’ understanding of the topic, the writer could include a diagram, such as one shown in the “talk” page.

It is clear that the topic is notable, since there are four references that talk specifically about chlorosomes. These sources are reliable because they are from scientific journals independent of the topic. However, not all facts in the article are referenced; there are no references given for the information regarding the structure of chlorosomes. Also, the hyperlink for the first reference is not directed to the specific article. --Jipark97 (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Critique of Shewanella
Shewanella is a notable subject because there are multiple sources describing numerous aspects of the genus, such as its basic characteristics, distribution, and response mechanisms. These sources, some of which are referenced below in the notes section, are from scientific journals and textbooks, so they are reliable sources. In addition, they are not press releases and are not written with a biased intention, so they are independent of the subject.

The information provided in the article is accurate and appropriately cited, except for one part in the overview. The article mentions that Shewanella is widely used for learning about microbial electrogenesis and microbial fuel cells, but no source is given. To make it evident that this statement is not the writer’s personal opinion, the writer should either expand on the applications of Shewanella or cite the statement. Also, although most information in the article is correct, has a neutral point of view, and is properly cited, the article gives a very limited overview of Shewanella. The only heading, regarding the diet of the genus, is very brief and does not give a lot of details.

To improve the article, more information should be added and appropriately categorized into different sections. For instance, in the overview, basic characteristics of Shewanella, such as the fact that it is a Gram-negative rod that is facultatively anaerobic, can be included. Also, a section describing the distribution and habitats of the genus can be added. Specifically, most bacteria in the genus are found in extreme aquatic habitats where the temperature is very low and pressure is very high. Finally, a section regarding the significance and applications of Shewanella can be added, where the unreferenced information in the overview of the article could be explained and cited. Out of these ways to improve the article, I intend to improve the content by adding a section describing the habitats of Shewanella and the mechanisms the bacteria use to live in a low-temperature, high-pressure environment.

Jung In Park's Peer Review
In terms of structure, the content was organized sensibly; however, I have suggestions for rearranging some sentences. My recommendations are to move the sentence, “Shewanella is also widely distributed in aquatic habitats...” to the introduction and to connect the two paragraphs in the significance section together. One reason to do this is because the sentence would be a nice addition to the description of Shewanella’s extreme aquatic habitat in the introduction. Another reason is that the significance section will have more flow in that it will only describe the importance of Shewanella’s metabolic versatility.

For content, I liked how a significance section was added to the end of this article as it gives the reader an appreciation for Shewanella’s environmental impact (mineral cycling) and also their use in environmental cleanup methods (bioremediation). The content was relevant, neutral, and supported with reliable sources.

I would like to complement the writing ability in that the ideas and sentences were laid out in a concise manner. The flow of writing for the most part takes the audience from one idea to the next (only exception: the sentence discussed above). For example, the first paragraph of the significance section began with explaining how Shewanella are metabolically versatile. Then the article explains how this versatility can impact the environment. This step by step flow created a very reader friendly article.

In terms of the added content, the required amount of sources was accomplished and the editor used reliable sources (ex. Applied and Environmental Microbiology Journal). In the first paragraph of the significance section, I only see one sentence out of three that are referenced. I suggest adding a citation at the end of each sentence to give credit to a source and to ensure your audience that all added components are from reliable sources. Mgsh9 (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)