User talk:Prabhreet Sekhon/sandbox

Article: Chlorosomes There are a lot of facts that are stated without citations such as in the lead, it says “green sulfur bacteria live at depths of 100m in the Black Sea”. Also, the line “chlorosomes are thought to be attached to…” is a reference to an unnamed source as we do not know who thinks that. To improve, any uncited information should be removed and more sources should be used to increase the reliability of article. Moreover, the last sentence in the lead is close paraphrased by referring to the chlorosome as ellipsoidal followed by describing its dimensions. Also, there is no balanced coverage. The article has more information about the pigment organization than the general structure of the complex. There should be more information about the general structure. Also, the information under the headings “Structure” and “Organization of light harvesting pigments” could be combined under one heading, “Structure”. And the part explaining the experiments and the techniques carried out by the scientists to determine the organization of light harvesting pigments can be confusing to the reader and should be excluded. A diagram could also have helped visualize the structure of the chlorosome. Also, the article is not neutral. For example, it tries to persuade readers when stating “the results may one day be used to build artificial photosynthetic systems” without a reference. Moreover, the article makes inferences when stating “…which implies that a less ordered structure has a better performance”. Neutrality can be accomplished by using only reliable facts and avoiding personal opinions. -Prabhreet Sekhon (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2 The article, magnetotaxis, needs improvement because all of its information is derived from a single source and thus gives only a brief overview of the topic with minimal detail. Although the article was written using a single source, there has been extensive research done on this topic such as the origin of magnetotaxis, advantages, and the structures involved in the process. Moreover, multiple researchers have studied a single aspect of of the process such as the purpose of magnetotaxis studied by Popp et al. and Smith et al. Thus contributing to the notability of topic. The academic journals are reliable sources since they are written by qualified researchers and are independent of subject. Overall, the article is missing important information and details. For example, the article briefly describes the process of magnetotaxis but does not explain its purpose/significance. To improve I would add the findings of Smith et al. that the process is used to orient the bacteria in the direction of more favourable aerobic conditions so they can reach it faster. Moreover, I would add more details on magnetosomes since they are the structures responsible for magnetotaxis and understanding them is crucial to the understanding of the process. To improve, I would add more information about their arrangements, composition and mechanism from the studies of Lefèvre and Bazylinski and Popp et al. Since the article does not give a very good overview of the topic, I will make improvements by adding more detail to existing information and by adding more general information such as movements in different hemispheres. The purpose is to create a better lead so the reader gets a basic understanding of all aspects of magnetotaxis.

Assignment #4 - Peer Review
The author has done a good job in editing this article. The added information were relevant and is in-line with the rest of the passage. It should be noted that the author has done well to keep the edits original, but has also cited the corresponding sentences. However, the original sentences still need citations (e.g., “In 1975, Richard…”). In addition, a change in the structure of the article may be also beneficial. For instance, breaking up the topic into corresponding subtopic questions (e.g., Cause and Mechanism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism) would provide some clarity to the reader. As for the content, the author has done a good job in giving some information about the magnetosomes. However, I believe it lacks depth. For example, the author could have added what groups of bacteria exhibit magnetotaxis, the morphological types, and the models of magnetosome formation and its effect on magnetotaxis. I would also suggest that the author add a diagram to help visualize the magnetosomes - even a video showing magnetotaxis would be great (please note that these can be found in supplemental papers of journals). As for the writing, I believe that the author could have been more concise. Instead of adding sentences to the end of each paragraph, I think the author could have better integrated his/her information, in addition to adding some of the mentioned facts above. Despite this, there is no disjoined ideas and observable run-on sentences. I do definitely like how the author did mention the controversies with regards to the south/north-seeking bacteria in Paragraph 3. However, with regards to citations, I think the author may need to find more references. For example, in the 3rd paragraph, I think that more citations would provide more viewpoints. Thus, more references would sufficiently reflect all the perspectives represented on this topic.

Ichigo Ryu (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)