User talk:Mjolnir96/Nitrosomonas

Peer review
The article is structured very well. It is very easy to comprehend and learn more about this genus.

Just review it overall, because some phrases do not work well. For istance, From MORPHOLOGY ) "All species includes' of this genus have ellipsoidal''... What do you mean by this? All species that belong to this genus? included?

Or another example, From Introduction "Is one of the five genera of ammonia-oxidizers", there should be a subject to this prhase.

or "CO2 as a carbon source in presents of oxygen;" did you mean presence?

However, I really enjoyed reading it! Well done, guys! Battloglio Battloglio (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer review
The article is well written and covers the relevant aspects regarding the topic. Howerver, there are some point that need to be modified in terms of organization of the sentences. For example: in the paragraph Morphology, ''Nitrosomonas eutropha presents rod to pear shaped cells with one or both ends pointed, with a size of (1.0-1.3 x 1.6- 2.3) µm. They have been shown motility. the last sentence is not correct, should be They show motility or They are motile''. Also the sentence Nitrosomonas marina present slender rods with rounded ends cells with a size of (0.7-0.9 x 1.7- 2.2) µm. should be slender rod cells with rounded ends.

In the paragraph genome wouldn't it make more sense to talk first about the genes involved in nitrogen metabolism (ammonia oxidation and denitrification) and then about those involved in the carbon metabolism?

In the paragraph Ecology, subparagraph habitat, in the sentence ''Nitrosomonas europaea, as well as populations of soil-dwelling ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB), have been shown to assimilate the carbon dioxide released by the reaction to make biomass via the Calvin cycle, and harvest energy by oxidizing ammonia to nitrite. This feature may explain enhanced growth of AOB in the presence of urea in acidic environments'' is not clear from which reaction the carbon dioxyde to be incorporated in the biomass is released. Also the whole sentence has been copied from another wikipedia article Nitrification so it absolutely needs to be rephrased. In the subparagraph nitrification the phrase  In agriculture, nitrification made by Nitrosomonas represents a problem because the oxidized nitrite by ammonia can persist in the soil, leaching, and making it less available for plants. is definitely not clear and needs to be rephrased.

Besides from these inaccuracies I found It a very interesting and complete article that I enjoyed reading. Good job guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus Pink (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Peer review
The article is well done, its structure is well organized and it's very easy to understand if you wanna learn more on this genera.

Despite the full text is written very well there are some little inaccuracies, such as the name of the species that are not in italic. I found these "mistakes" in paragraph of Genome, subparagraph Denitrification genes, subparagraph Carbon fixation genes and in paragraph Other uses for Nitrosomonas europaea, and in paragraph Other uses for Nitrosomonas eutropha.

Also i don't really like the cite of the study in the paragraph Other uses, subparagraph Medical benefits: This study is in connection with the idea... Because it is very specific for this study, so i checked on some sites and i found other researches that tell the same thing:

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/innovation-in-acne-treatment-is-long-overdue-but-the-treatment-pipeline-looks-promising/20203702.article?firstPass=false

and

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ics.12594

so you can change the sentence from This study is in connection..., to Several studies are in connection.... For the rest, it's very well done, and i enjoyed reading this article because you make it very direct and intersting. Very good job Guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensei97 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi guys! Very good job and thank for your work! The article is fluid, very clear and well-structured. I really appreciate the 'Metabolism' paragraph, i found it exhaustive. Maybe, i just recommend to you to add an immage that summarize the whole process, just to make it more simpler also for those who know less about it. Finally, just a little-importance consideration about the 'Genome' paragraph: sometimes commas are missing. For example in the subparagraph 'Carbon fixation genes' in the phrase 'Over these genes has been highlighted the presence of an assumed regulatory gene ccbR[...]', here it would be better to add a comma after the word highlighted. There are other mistakes like this in the same paragraph. It's all guys! Thank you again, also for reading my comment. CarlottaDeBl (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi guys, i liked your work and i find it really well written. I wouldn't change anything except i would link Nitrosomonas species to their wikipedia pages in the paragraph  Morphology . Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlucky Marco (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Peer review
Very good job, it’s an interesting article, well structured. I found only few mistakes that you should take a look on: in Genome chapter, subchapter Ammonia-oxidation genes, you wrote: 1:''..the cycA that endodes for cytochrome c554..’’ : here the verb should be encodes; 2: ‘’..there are only three copy..’’it should be copies. In subchapter ‘’Denitrification genes’’ it’s written that: ‘’The second genes involved in the denitrification are norCBQD that encodes for a nitric-oxide reductase that catalyzes the reduction from..’’: in the first part of the phrase you use verbs in plural ( genes..are..) while in the second part you use verbs at singular (encodes, catalyzes) so I don’t understand exactly if the subject is singular or plural. Finally, in chapter Ecology, subchapter Leaching of soil, Nitrosomonas is not written in italics as well as Nitrosomonas europaea written in chapter Other uses:Medical benefits. MaryN96 (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)MaryN96

Peer review by Fabio
ok guys well done! I just have a few suggestions: 1) In morphology chapter, I would avoid putting all the names one after the other and try to make it a more discursive chapter, then i think you can put only one reference [6] at the end, no error only a stylistic suggestion. 2) Maybe in the whole article there is a lack of images, I know it is not easy to find images of bacteria, try on commons 3) I would have inserted a Scientific classification table, I really like this kind of table because with it I can easily navigate the entire taxonomy of the organism 4) Do you know the name of the genus was given by Winogradsky in 1892? you can puit information like this in the introduction section. No more, I really enjoyed the chapter on genetics a really well done job! Compliments ;) Fabio Russo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabio Russo 23 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)