User talk:Nuts4squirrels/sandbox

Evaluating Redfield Ratio article
While the entry for the Redfield Ratio is sufficient in introducing the initial foundations for how the Redfield Ratio was noticed and established across marine ecology theory, a lot of the content is out of date. Nowadays, much more is known about the Redfield ratios that govern (or are governed by) different phytoplankton communities. With updated techniques and a lot of persistence, much more has also been found on the trace elements necessary for life outside of the classic C:N:P Redfield ratio theory. While the article section for 'Extended Redfield Ratio' does have some mention of productivity limitation by Fe, it does not at all attempt to quantify or give any mention of current estimates of [Fe] concentration across various portions of the ocean.

The tone of the article is satisfactory. It uses Wikipedia's standard third person passive tone and does well to not bias itself obviously to any of the multiple ecological theories mentioned in the main portion of the article. I do think the tone of the 'Extended Redfield Ratio' would be greatly improved by paraphrasing instead of shoving a direct quotation from a very old article in with the text. Other than this, this section's tone is fairly standard across the short portion of text possible to review.

The whole Wikipedia article cites 9 sources, 1 of which appears to have any mention of some of the extensions to the ratio (Si). The most recent citation is from 2010, and most cited articles are textbooks instead of peer-reviewed research. While one of the sources does try to get into the nitty-gritty biology governing these ratios (Loladze 2011), much more has been found on the biological machinery and the bulk organic composition necessary to sustain the current general composition of nutrients across the ocean.

The article's talk page is fairly limited. There are two subjects classified as 'Start-Class' on the article quality scale and 'Mid-Importance' on the importance scale: The Redfield Ratio is a subset of both the WikiProject Soil and WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography projects. It is also explicitly noted on the talk page that the cited (classical) Redfield ratio is out of date compared to numerous estimates of ratios per phytoplankton community context.

Whoever was the initial person to slap this article together did not do much to put citations in correct format or to paraphrase text outside of long direct quotes. I think most of my technical edits will deal with sorting this out. Also, the content of the page has a much stronger focus on the discovery of the Redfield ratio and Redfield himself, rather than the significance and applications of the phenomenon itself.

Nuts4squirrels (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Finding Sources
These are the sources I'm considering to add additional context to the 'Extended Redfield Ratio' subarticle

Iron Nutrition of Phytoplankton and Its Possible Importance in the Ecology of Ocean Regions with High Nutrient and Low Biomass." Oceanography : The Official Magazine of the Oceanography Society. 4.2 (1991): 56-61. Web.

Twining, B.S., S.B. Baines, N.S. Fisher. Element stoichiometries of individual plankton cells collected during the Southern Ocean Iron Experiment (SOFeX). Limnol. Oceanogr. Vol 49(6), 2004

Tortell, P.D., M.T. Maldonado, J. Granger, N.M. Price. Marine bacteria and biogeochemical cycling of iron in the oceans. Microbiology Ecology. Vol. 29(1). 1999

Barbeau, K. E.B. Kujawinski, J.W. Moffett. Remineralization and recycling of iron, thorium and organic carbon by heterotrophic protists in culture. Aquat Microb Ecol. Vol. 24. 2001

Benner, R., J. Pakulski, M. McCarthy, J.I. Hedges, P.G. Hatcher. Bulk chemical Characteristics of Dissolved Organic Matter in the Ocean. Science. Vol. 255. 1992

Boiteau RM, Hawco NJ, Mende DR, McIlvin MR, Sedwick PN, Saito MA, Delong EF, Repeta DJ. Microbes adapt to iron scarcity through siderophore production across the eastern tropical Pacific. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:14237–14242. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Hansell DM, Carlson CA, editors. Biogeochemistry of Marine Dissolved Organic Matter. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2015. Chap. 2. Mawji E, Gledhill M, Milton JA, Tarran GA, Ussher S, Thompson A, Wolff GA, Worsfold PJ, Achterberg EP. Hydroxamate siderophores: Occurrence and importance in the Atlantic Ocean. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42:8675–8680. [PubMed] Twining BS, Baines SB. The trace metal composition of marine phytoplankton. Annu Rev Mar Sci. 2013;5:191–215. [PubMed] [CrossRef] Dubinin, A.V. Geochemistry of Rare Earth Elements in the Ocean. Lithology and Mineral Resources. Vol. 39(4). 2004.

Drafting my Contributions
[I'd stuck this on the wiki article's talk page but have since moved it here.]

The Redfield Ratio or Redfield stoichiometry is the consistent atomic ratio of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus found in marine phytoplankton and throughout the deep oceans.

This empirically measured stoichiometric ratio has been found to be approximately C:N:P of 106:16:1, but can vary depending on dominant phytoplankton species, location, or nutrient limitation conditions. The term is named for American oceanographer Alfred C. Redfield who first described the ratio in 1934[].

Extended Redfield Ratio
The Redfield Ratio can be extended to include other elements necessary for life, such as potassium, sulfure, zinc, copper, iron, and other trace metals, in what is known as the 'Extended Redfield Ratio'.

While iron contamination from research vessels and oceanographic equipment has made determination of a consistent ocean iron concentration difficult to determine [].

Nuts4squirrels (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Nuts4squirrels's peer review
Lead section: The lead section of the draft provides a definition of extended Redfield ratio and a summary that covers the topics of the sections in the draft. However, it seems that the lead section of the draft somewhat repeats the first sentence of extended Redfield ratio section in the original Redfield ratio Wikipedia article. It would be great if the lead section could be revised specifically for the draft contents, such as highlighting the research directions that have been explored to study extended Redfield ratio.

Structure: The structure of the draft is logically clear. Following the lead section of “Extended Redfield” in the original article and in this draft, the first paragraph explains why iron is of great importance to be incorporated into the extended Redfield ratio compared to other elements. The first paragraph also involves the current progress and limitations of the research in extended Redfield ratio with regard to iron. The second paragraph further introduces the current researches that study the mechanism that may regulate the extended Redfield ratio and compare the difference of the factors that dominate the traditional and extended Redfield ratio.

Coverage: The contents in the draft are all relevant to the overall topic which is extended Redfield ratio and there are no unnecessary sections. The draft provides a good summary of extended Redfield ratio of including iron in the traditional Redfield ratio because it has been studied extensively. However, the research progress of the extended Redfield ratio with regard to other elements is not mentioned in the draft which results in slightly unbalanced coverage of the topic. It would be great if the study of the extended Redfield ratio with regard to other trace metals (e.g., K, Cu, Zn, etc.) could be incorporated as are mentioned in the lead section.

Neutrality: Overall, the draft does good in the neutrality of contents except for the first sentence of the second paragraph using the positive association “Most work”. Although the determination of stoichiometric ratios in different phytoplankton types is of great importance, It would be better if the work of the minority groups that study extended Redfield ratio is included as well to provide a complete review of the current research proceedings of extended Redfield ratio.

Sources: Due to the missing of the reference list in the doc file, I cannot help to check each reference for their contents and reliability, but it seems there is no problem of unbalanced referencing. Some of the references should be added to replace the blank brackets. Also, the number reference system is recommended to be applied once the reference list has been set up. Zjli0415 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)