User talk:Lizhuang97/sandbox

Wiki Critique of the FtsZ Article
The FtsZ article is a basic start on a good Wikipedia article. The introduction is concise and briefly talks about what FtsZ is, but it does not state what the article will discuss. Also, references should be linked so that people know where the facts in the introduction came from. The outline of the page is rudimentary but methodical. The history section consists of three small paragraphs that do not flow. This suggests that multiple editors added their share separately. To improve, one can re-write the section for better coherence. The functions of FtsZ are all well represented in accordance to their significance. As function is the main part of the article, an addition of a "Structure" section will greatly enrich the article and the images of the structures of FtsZ used. Since structure influences the functions of proteins, readers will also gain a deeper understanding as to why and how these functions happen. The material discussed is all relevant to the topic and is generally up to date. However, there has been more research conducted with new insights into the functions and mechanisms of FtsZ. Random references were also checked which all brought up unbiased, peer-reviewed journals. Lastly, there are seven references that are not linked to any passages in the article. Linking these will greatly improve the coherence of the article as readers will know what facts were pulled out from these references.

Lizhuang97 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Critique and Proposed Improvement for Bioremediation
The Bioremediation article is a poorly planned article that would merit from major changes. First, the introduction goes into too much detail and talks about too many aspects of bioremediation. To improve, one can create new sections to expand on the different topics. Next, the main approaches to bioremediation that are discussed are "Genetic Engineering Approaches" and "Mycoremediation". These topics are discussed too much for their significance within bioremediation. Instead, the article should have an "Aerobic Bioremediation" section, as it is the most common approach to bioremediation, and an "Anaerobic Bioremediation" section which is also an important approach. Lastly, since only an "Advantages" section was created, the reader's perception may be skewed, as only the positive notes of bioremediation are discussed. A "Limitations" section is needed to discuss the negatives and areas of bioremediation that require further research. This section is important as it will provide the reader with the full picture and not just the positives of bioremediation. However, I will be adding an "Aerobic Bioremediation" section because it is imperative that readers learn about the most common approach to bioremediation instead of those of less significance. This section will talk about the generalities of aerobic bioremediation and its specific technologies. Bioremediation is one of the methods of neutralizing pollutants that is of great interest to many scientists. Hence, bioremediation has significant coverage as there are many scientific papers (over 64000 articles in the UBC library) and government sites that discuss them in great detail from a neutral perspective. These articles are reliable because they are published in peer-reviewed journals. The government websites are reliable because they reference peer-reviewed scientific articles. As such, all of these references are secondary sources independent of the authors who wrote the articles, and therefore have the most objective view on bioremediation. The scientific articles are published in peer-reviewed journals and thus are also secondary sources. Lastly, the notability is not temporary because scientists are constantly researching and trying to improve and discover new approaches and technologies. Hence, all of this significant coverage on bioremediation warrants the work required to improve the article.

Lizhuang97 (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Bobby Tsankov's Peer Review
Given the array of primary research establishing the importance of bioremediation in the proper maintenance of biological communities, placing a new section of the “Disadvantages” of bioremediation provides a very eloquent contrast, and broadens the scope of the article. Additionally, placing this new section at the end of the article is very fitting, as it links the article’s contents together, and maintains the fluidity of the sections above it. However, the title “Disadvantages” is somewhat misleading as it lacks specificity and seems fragmented from the section’s contents. Perhaps changing it to “Shortcomings of Bioremediation” would provide the needed specificity.

The content of the section is also particularly well researched and represents the shortcomings of bioremediation from multiple perspectives – it addresses the mechanistic shortcomings on a microbial level, as well as the limitations on a practical, anthropogenic level. However, through a multitude of mentioned shortcomings, the main idea of the limitations of bioremediation is sometimes lost. One suggestion is to break the section into paragraphs outlining the compound and bacterial shortcomings, and the environmental and anthropogenic limitations. Furthermore, the mentioned limitations regarding recalcitrant compounds require more in-depth explanations regarding the conditions under which they are not biodegradable.

The cited sources are primary literature from scientific journals, signifying that the topic is highly notable. Furthermore, the references are all from a varied time period (1993 2014), and are comprised of differing (yet related) central topics, displaying the representative and holistic research done by the author of the section. However, the section seems to heavily allude to reference #4, specifically pg. 1170. In order to ameliorate the representativeness of the section, more varied references should be used within the writing. Lastly, the first sentence requires a citation.

The style of writing is appropriate for Wikipedia, as it is factual and non-persuasive. However, there are instances of close paraphrasing which should be fixed. For example, the first sentence of the section: “Bioremediation is limited to converting contaminants that are amenable to biodegradation.” is similar in structure to: “Bioremediation is limited to those compounds that are biodegradable” (Vidali pg. 1170). Finally, it would help to link some of the sentences together, as sometimes they feel individually feel a little disjointed. Boyan Tsankov (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)