User talk:Milad5858/sandbox

Bacterial circadian rhythms
Several improvements can be made to this article. Firstly, the entire first two leading paragraphs lack the necessary citations. The information presented are facts and must be referenced adequately. For example, the content of the initial sentence is consistent with that of Dr. Vitaterna and her colleague’s paper called, “Overview of Circadian Rhythms”, which describes the characteristics of circadian rhythms. The article is not void of references and in fact, the references used are viable as they are from independent, and reputable academic sources that are mostly in the form of journals. Interestingly, in 2009, the references were discussed in the talk page as they were previously not "clickable" but that has now been resolved and the hyperlinks are correct.

In the fourth heading regarding gene expression and chromosomal topography, promoters are depicted as being rhythmically regulated however, it is subsequently stated that the mechanistic details are unknown. This section needs to be updated as it hasn't been edited since 2009. New articles such as the article published by Dr. Pekovic-Vaughan and her colleagues (2014), discuss such a matter. Thus, a more elaborate, updated description of the rhythmic nature of promoter regulation is required in order to support the bold statement of the prior sentence indicating that "all promoters are rhythmically regulated".

The article has a neutral tone, however, the heading, "Visualizing the clockwork's "gears": structural biology of clock proteins" is unnecessarily long and could instead be replaced with "Structural biology of clock proteins".

- Milad5858 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Reductive dechlorination
With over 8,500 publications in the UBC library database, reductive dechlorination is certainly notable and is a possible solution to combating increasing pollution levels. Specifically, it can lower the levels of toxins such as PCBs, PCEs and CFCs. These toxins accumulate in aquifers, soils, sediments and can bioaccumulate in tissues due to industrial chemical wastes. In addition to their increasing concentrations, these compounds are extremely harmful and their impacts as a whole range from hindering brain development, to affecting pregnancy outcomes, to increasing global warming, to even impeding the immune function of fish.

The article does a decent job describing the process of reductive dechlorination using appropriate sources, however, additions can be made. At the end of the first heading labeled, "Biology", bioremediation is discussed; however, this is not given enough emphasis. Bioremediation is what primarily gives this article it's notability and importance for readers, hence, it must be expanded upon. Firstly, a subsection called, "Bioremediation using reductive dechlorination" is required under the "Biology" section. Under this subsection, information regarding PCE bioremediation can be placed. This will be followed by a discussion of the bioremediation of other toxins such as PCBs and CFCs. PCBs are discussed under the "Radiation" section, however, it does not mention the bioremediation aspect. To expand on PCB bioremediation, a study performed by Dr. Quensen and his colleagues can be presented, in which they examined the reductive dechlorination of PCBs using microorganisms from the Hudson River and found that under anaerobic conditions, there was a drastic increase in reduced PCBs after 16 weeks. This can be further discussed through the research of Dr. Alder and his colleagues in which the rate of reductive dechlorination of PCBs using microorganisms derived from various water bodies were compared. Recently, it has been found that bioaugmentation with DF-1 can lead to enhanced reductive dechlorination of PCBs, and can increase the feasibility of reductive dechlorination as a means of bioremediation thus, alluding again to the high notability of this topic. To complete this subsection, the potential of reduction dechlorination in eliminating 10 of the most common CFCs will be discussed.

- Milad5858 (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Naser's Peer Review
Overall, I enjoyed your piece and thought it was very well done. In terms of structure and placement, I like how you added in the new subcategory. One thing I would suggest would be to give a sentence or two of brief introduction into the topic of bioremediation, before jumping into some applications, like its use for groundwater. I understand this was in the original article, but it would help give a good foundation for your later edits.

Your content was also well written. There is appropriate evidence to support your points and they all were relevant to the main idea. One suggestion I have would be to give a little more explanation to some of your mentions. For example, just a couple words devoted to defining what exactly PCBs and CFCs are, and explaining what an electron sink is.

The evidence you included from studies was great; however, be careful about adding information without having a real need for it. For instance, for the Hudson River study, there doesn’t seem to be any motivation for it to be included. In addition, you mentioned, “Microorganisms in differing locations…show various rates of PCB dechlorination”. These types of experimental findings are hard to mention without having a conclusion. If you included them to explain or support a factual statement, it would be safe to add some explanation in, without sounding biased. Otherwise, they may introduce more questions than answers.

Your writing is very fluid and breaks down difficult science so the average person can understand. Besides the things mentioned above, it was written concisely, and didn’t include any unnecessary tangents or explanations irrelevant to the main topic. As well, you did a great job in staying neutral and simply presenting facts to the reader.

Your references all appear to be from reliable journals and are all distributed across various references. One thing I did notice is that the formatting for each citation is different. All the dates are in a different place in each of the references, with the last one not having a date of publication, except within the doi link.

Sddem (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)