User talk:Migdesmarais/sandbox

Peer-review of "Sea Ice Microbial Communities (SIMCO)"
Karahavet (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary notes:
Overall, the article nicely covers all core aspects of SIMCO in sufficient detail. I think the sections were chosen appropriately and are very relevant to the topic. In general, the article is well-written, but some sections require more proof-reading and - possibly - some re-structuring of paragraphs for a coherent flow. Content-wise, I only have suggestions for the "Adaptations" section, which looks somewhat incomplete at the moment. I did not leave any comments regarding figures, but I hope you'll figure them out soon :)

Peer-review checklist:
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? '''

Generally, the article covers all necessary aspects of SIMCO. While I have a couple minor content-related suggestions, I don’t think any significant changes are required.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? '''

I don’t think the article is biased.

'''Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? '''

Not sure if this relates to the viewpoints, but the “Adaptations” section looks a bit raw. I have outlined my suggestions regarding more content below.

'''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? '''

The ones that I checked work fine. Maybe format reference 24, because it’s lacking the title.

'''Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? '''

The references look good (i.e. research papers of sufficient quality), except the last section on biogeochemical cycles isn’t formatted properly yet.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? '''

Again, “adaptations” require more content, which is explained further below.

'''Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? '''

Not relevant.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? '''

There is no article on SIMCO on wiki yet.

'''How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? '''

Not relevant.

Notes on individual sections:
Introduction

It would be useful to begin the intro by providing an actual definition for SIMCO, because it is ultimately what the reader wants to know first.

Good overview of sea ice communities in general, but organizing all points into a more coherent paragraph would make it easier to follow. A few sentences were somewhat disconnected (e.g. explanation for ecological implications of SIMCOs --> pores in the ice). Either reorganizing sentence structure or separating paragraphs by individual themes would work.

Another sort of picky, but important point: correct punctuation was lacking, and there were some run-on sentences that need to be resolved (i.e. “When seawater freezes it forms a matrix with many pores, these interconnected pores allow...”).

Habitat

I think it was a great idea to dedicate separate sections to chemical and physical properties of sea ice. Overall, this was an interesting read, and the information was pretty exhaustive. The flow was logical and coherent, so the section was easy to follow.

Minor confusions:

·        Not sure what the following was supposed to mean: “...while the sea ice-air interface reflects more the current atmospheric temperature.”

·        What does PSU stand for? I’m not sure it was defined before in the article.

'''I think it would be better to have the following 3 themes together as part of one big section and arrange the content in a way that is similar to the “Habitat” section of your article: '''

'''1. Colonization '''

I don’t think that the statement “EPS are proteins expressed on the cell walls…” is correct. EPS are polymeric substances, and those could be not just proteins, but also sugars or nucleic acids.

Aside from that, I think the section is well-written and covers the necessary core aspects of microbial deposition and colonization on sea ice.

'''2. Spatial Distribution '''

I noticed some sentences copied pretty much word-for-word from the original sources. These need further correction. There were also small typos that made the read somewhat confusing.

Overall, the section provides sufficient information on the spatial distribution of microbes within the ice, but it would be helpful to divide the paragraph into smaller sections connected by a key idea.

'''3. Temporal Distribution '''

I’m not sure how “The microbial community composition does not seem to change significantly in fall and winter…” means that “…the early spring microbial distribution is typically representative of the source…” It feels like some point is missing between the two statements.

I’m also a bit unsure of the following sentence, which comes on too strong, “It has also been proven that microbes produce extracellular polymeric substances (EPS)…” In addition to that, it would be useful to provide a couple examples of how microbes utilize EPS to enhance their survival under extreme conditions.

The two sentences starting with “Psychrophilic bacteria such as Pseudoalteromonas…” are irrelevant to the topic, in my opinion, and should go under the “Community composition” section.

Lastly, I would suggest dividing the large paragraph into 2-3 smaller ones connected by a common key theme for a more coherent flow.

'''Community composition '''

I think this section is well-researched and nicely organized. I wouldn’t suggest any additional improvements.

'''Adaptation '''

I believe it would be useful to explain in more detail how exactly EPS were shown to assist in microbe survivability within these ice communities. Maybe, you could also cover other relevant adaptations, such as membrane structure, antifreeze proteins that are commonly used by psychrophiles, cold-shock response strategies, etc.

'''Metabolic diversity '''

The section doesn’t look finished, and I also noticed a lack of citations towards the second half. I don’t think you need a separate sub-section dedicated to the “role in the carbon pump” though. If you want to discuss microbial contributions of SIMCO to the global carbon cycles, it would be best to include it along with the other biogeochemical cycles as part of one larger theme.

-- Peer Review - Your Wikipedia article has a lot of sections and details which is great. Although, it would be very helpful to have a summary of why each section is included in the article. Would it work better if the fcus is more towards the mocrobial community from the beginning. As well, layering the headings (adding subheadings may help with the flow). The article has great sources and I see that research has been done thoroughly, so I think just focusing the article more towards its effects/roles in Microbial community (which is at the bottom of your section -- maybe putting it in top onstead?) instead of the definitions would help. Overall, I find the information already on the sandbox helpful and hopefully more gets added to it based on the notes. Ckambd (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

=Jack Anthony Peer Review= This seems like a very well rounded article that is nearly ready for wiki main. There are a few small spelling/grammatical errors such as "Arcticc" but once those are changed, figures are added, and personal notes removed it should be ready to go.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
I agree with the note already on there that the entire nitrogen cycle doesn't need to be explained. I think that section could be removed or whittled down to just be a discussion of how SIMCO is effected by and effects nutrient cycles.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Nope. Seems unbiased.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Not from what is talked about in the article.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
Everything I looked at seemed good.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
All sources are published primary literature. Looks appropriate.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
All of this is quite new.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
Just peer reviews as this is still on an user page.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
This article is not on wiki main yet.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
We have not discussed SIMCO in EOSC475