User talk:Raaghul1698/sandbox

Raaghu's Peer Review
Structure: Overall, the edited article is a good attempt to improve the original Ecology section because it brings some insight and information on the carbon-cycle-related ecology of Prochlorococcus. Raaghu’s edited article focuses primarily on ecology, which is relevant to its article placement. I think the Prochlorococcus Wikipedia article could be improved further if the “Distribution” and “Ecology” sections were merged, since distribution is a subfield of ecology, and there was a lot of overlapping content in both sections.

Writing and Content: The article could be made more concise by removing the material stated in previous sections, such as information on morphological traits and Prochlorococcus distribution. Also, it may benefit to focus on the carbon cycle which is an interesting and notable ecological aspect, considering the abundance of Prochlorococcus in oceans. Neither of the cited works go into depth on carbon cycling, since the main citation was predominantly about Prochlorococcus carbon stocks, and the second citation had only a brief paragraph dedicated in a personal webpage. The article is easy to understand for readers without prior exposure to the subject, since the ideas are clear and straightforward. However, the last sentence about CO$2$ sequestration is not fully supported in the cited literature because there was no mention of the exact proportion of carbon sequestered. There was also no mention of biological carbon pumps or food webs, which are ideas that may be biased from our previous lectures.

Reliable Sources: Noticeably, the Prochlorococcus Wikipedia page was used as the main source of information for this article edit, and I think credibility may be improved by using primary literature, instead of these secondary sources. I suggest using the UBC summon search, where there are many recent studies about Prochlorococcus due to its abundance and nutrient interactions in the ocean.

LevanaYang (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Raaghu's Peer Review
The structure of the section follows a logical order provided with a cause and effect. For placement of the section, I would suggest moving the whole ecology section to be under the distribution section of the original article, or even combining the two sections. There are many relating facts between these two sections and moving them closer together would improve coherence of the topic. The content provides a good overview of the ecology of Prochlorococcus, but lacks in-depth explanation of what the various ecotypes are and how they allow these organisms to grow abundantly in various ecologies. The first sentence is quite misleading to readers, since Prochlorococci are prokaryotes and not plants. It would be best to reword the sentence so that it highlights the prokaryotic nature as well as the photosynthetic ability of Prochlorococci. Furthermore, I suggest removing the redundant content where it is relating to where these organisms are located since it was previously mentioned in the distribution section of the original Wikipedia page. Overall, the writing is clear and concise. There are specific terminologies in the last sentence that require either an in-line explanation or a link to their respective Wikipedia pages. Also, pay attention to special formatting when using symbols to represent units for latitude and longitude, and subscripts for chemical compounds. The cited sources lack reliability. Two out of three cited sources are considered unreliable, as one source is a personal website, and the other is the Prochlorococcus Wikipedia page itself. Reliable sources such as journal articles or published books should be used instead. Also, citations need to follow the Wikipedia citation format by including authors, title, year, etc. for the journal article. You may also want to specify which statement came from which source by inserting the citation immediately after the statement. Yinghuang237 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)