User talk:Navid.Saleh/sandbox

First aside from the wiki link, the first two paragraphs lack any form of primary literature citations. For instance, there are many claims about the thought that only “eukaryotic cells had circadian rhythms”(p.2) however there is no support. Furthermore the author lacks to provide any citations to show that other bacteria other than the mentioned cyanobacteria (Synechococcus sp. RF-1), do or do not have circadian rhythms. Yet the author claims that the cyanobacteria work “firmly [establish] that prokaryotic bacteria are capable of circadian rhythmicity”(p.5). The author could have included some evidence about the current research of other types of bacteria such as eubacteria .This leads to the unrepresented viewpoint that there are no general bacterial circadian rhythms other than a few examined cases. Furthermore, there is one issue with one of the wiki links where the word eubacteria is linked, however the page linked to is for the general Bacteria page.

Some of the language used in describing the studies are not appropriate. For instance when the author is calling the work of Sweeney and Borgese a “ground breaking study”(p.4), the author is using value statements for the references. There are also many definitive statements, for instance when the author claims that there are “benefits of having a daily clock”(p.8), the author only uses one study on one type of bacteria. The general flow is also difficult to follow and there are many underrepresented or very short sub categories, suggesting a rewrite.

Aerobic Denitrification - Assignment 2
The wikipedia article Aerobic denitrification merits improvement for two primary reasons. The first being that the article has no section about the microorganisms that are capable of aerobic denitrification and the specific cellular processes involved in this mode of respiration. Moreover, there could also be more emphasis surrounding the difference between aerobic denitrification and anaerobic denitrification, other than the net chemical reactions. The second is that the section regarding environmental impact has no mentions of the implications surrounding aerobic denitrification and agriculture, or municipal waste treatment.

Aside from the sections previously mentioned that requires improvement, the subject is also highly notable. There are a plethora of sources for support. For instance there are 4 references on the article itself, and there are some articles that also have specific examples of bacteria that denitrify aerobically like Acinetobacter sp SYF26, and Paracoccus denitrificans. There are also articles that explain the implications of aerobic denitrifying Castellaniella bacteria on agriculture.

As mentioned earlier there are a few approaches to editing this article. First the articles lead section could could have additions to highlight some examples of bacterium that do use aerobic denitrification as a mode of respiration. Currently the article has no mention of any bacteria that denitrify aerobically, but the article just mentions that there are “various genera of microorganisms”(p1) that denitrify aerobically. Alternatively, there could be a separate section added focusing on the types of aerobic denitrification studied, or perhaps on one of the most studied aerobic denitrifiers like the previously mentioned Paracoccus denitrificans. Furthermore, there could be additions done to the “Environmental Impact” section by referencing to some soil microbes extracted from agricultural soil, like Castellaniella bacteria. There are also cases of aerobically denitrifying pseudomonas being extracted from municipal activated sludge in china.

Finally, the arctics citations are very dated, with the newest reference coming from 1990. The information planned to be added is coming from papers that are fairly new, with most coming from 2017 and 2015, and the oldest coming from 2003. Furthermore the article has not been updated since April 2016.

Erica (Seo Yun) Choi's Peer Review
It is notable that your edits contribute to the only section of the article aside from the introduction. Thus, consider adding a sentence or two that would help the reader transition from the introduction to your edited content. In addition, it may be useful to reorganize the subset of ideas under a few subheadings so that one idea can be presented per section. For instance, creating headings such as “Global Warming”, “Agriculture”, “Algal Blooms” and “Wastewater Treatment” would aid in grouping your main points.

You have done a nice job in adding great volume of detail that was lacking in the original article. Also, by providing specific examples of aerobic bacteria and integrating the examples to your claims, you have increased the relevance of the content to the rest of the article. Nevertheless, your edits would merit a few suggestions for improvement. For instance, there are overlapping mentions of the “nitrous oxide” and its impact on global warming, sparsely placed throughout the edits. Reduce the redundancy by collecting the idea into a paragraph and eliminating repeated sentences.

Your writing is neutral in tone, and you effectively convey the viewpoints using plain language. Nonetheless, the logical flow is significantly lacking in some areas. For example, you begin the first sentence with “wastewater treatment” in the first paragraph. However, the following sentence is about “global warming”. Combine your elaboration given in the second paragraph with the claim to eliminate abrupt changes in topic. Overall, connecting the dots via rearrangement of ideas would enhance the flow of your edits.

Finally, with the addition of references sourcing from reputable, peer-reviewed databases, you have strengthened the reliability of the article. However, your second paragraph heavily relies on a single source. To eliminate potential bias, consider adding another reference that primarily focuses on the global impact of nitrous oxide. I have listed some references for you to have a look. Lastly, please add the missing source for citation [1].

se110301 (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Links
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28493368

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4173371/

Missing Link for Citation [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00408378