User talk:Mahta Amanian/sandbox

Assignment 1: Critique a Wikipedia Article – Chlorosome''' '''

Though this article has proper structure arranged by themes, the entire article lacks enough references.

This article has provided reliable sources, such as an article published in Science Journal, PNAS Journal, one with 22 citations, and another with 49 citations (although this citation’s hyperlink did not lead to the right place). Though these citations are considered as reliable and two are from highly acclaimed journals, the entire article lacks enough references. For example, the short paragraph under the “Structure” heading is very dense in information – but does not have any citation. In addition to this, under the “An alternative energy source” heading, there is a sentence where the author claims that results from a study may one day lead to solar energy being converted to electricity or biofuel. This sentence contains no citation and therefore the validity is questionable and one may believe that the author is claiming this from their own point of view.

The “Organization of the light harvesting pigments” heading contains too much information from a single study. This section is overrepresented. In 2008, someone from the Wikipedia community contributed to the structure of the chlorosome, including an image and three references, however the author did not reply. This may have been an informational addition to the article if it had been considered.

Although the author has done a good job of paraphrasing their sources, citing every paragraph and providing more relevant information under the appropriate heading would possibly improve the article’s “Start” class article evaluation.

Mahta Amanian (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Reflection: Critiquing this article has allowed me to understand the importance of citing information from reliable sources. As someone who uses Wikipedia often for school and general knowledge, I want the information to be reliable and up to date, and I have now learned how to determine if those conditions have been followed. This assignment was of medium difficulty and the hardest part was checking all of the references to ensure that the author paraphrased well and did not plagiarize. Mahta Amanian (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2 - Critique of Biomineralization Wikipedia Article
The Biomineralization article contains a significant number of reliable sources that establish its notability. There are multiple resources from Science       , Nature   , and PNAS  that directly apply to the article material. In addition to these references from highly acclaimed journals, the article contains five references from books. Overall, these independent sources are from reliable publishers that are well-known for fact-checking. Adding to the article’s notability, the article is organized in the sense that it is structured with headings and subheadings arranged by themes. The images are appropriate and apply to the article. The hyperlinks and wikilinks all lead to the right website and page. Overall, the article is highly organized and easy to read.

Biomineralization is a topic that has been advancing in research for many years, dating as far back as 1963. With new studies being conducted, we are learning more about how biomineralization occurs among different microorganisms. Under the Biology heading, there are two sentences that mention how biominerals are deposited by an organism. There is a subheading within the Biology heading that talks about shell formation in molluscs through biomineralization. Although the molluscs are important to mention, I felt that the article should also expand by including other microorganisms that have a role in biomineralization, mainly, fungi, which is why I chose the Biomineralization Wikipedia article to critique.

After doing some research, I have found some studies that have shown fungi’s role in biomineralization. I plan on incorporating the information below as a subheading within the Biology heading. I found that fungi can convert sediment to sedimentary rock which can ultimately lead to biodegradation. Additionally, it has been found that fungi can precipitate uranium-containing phosphate biominerals. Uranium is toxic towards living organisms, and therefore this has an important impact in our world. Fungi, as well as other microorganisms such as sulfate-reducing bacteria and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, deteriorate metals ultimately leading to corrosion, which is a costly problem for many industries.

With the additional information I am proposing summarized above, I hope to provide the reader with an understanding of the broad group of organisms that can carry out biomineralization.

Mahta Amanian (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Mahta Amanian´s peer review
To begin with the peer review I want to highlight the main features of the edition that I found correctly done and which I think that make this article more complete. Firstly, since the subsection added introduces another type of organisms that are able to do biomineralization it is logical that another subsection has been created to properly extend the content of the article. Another fact of the edition to point out is that the subsection has a clear structure organised in three paragraphs representing each of them, in a balanced manner, a certain topic that is related to each source mentioned. Moreover, the subsection includes an introduction to the topic that helps the reader to be located in the content and the facts are described concisely explaining what it is more remarkable of the sources. Related to this, all the articles cited come from reliable scientific journals and both close-paraphrasing and bias don´t seem to be present.

On the other hand, I would suggest some changes in the article to improve its content. I found the introduction of the subsection quite long compared with the facts that are shown below. I would have focused more on the biomineralization process in these organisms and the differences with the one done by mollucs rather than giving a definition of bioremediation, for example. Additionally, the second paragraph may possibly be placed in the “Potential applications” section as, in this one, Uranium precipitation is broadly explained helping to understand this process. Also, as the main topic is biomineralization and not biodegradation, the third paragraph that talks about mineral degradation could be shorten and given less importance comparing to the other two paragraphs. Ana Gallego Cortés (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)