User talk:RayFengvon/sandbox

Critique of the Chlorosome article
 * Generally speaking, the article of Chlorosome is not effective for public reading, because it has an unfocused overview, a biased content and a short list of references.
 * First of all, the structure and organization of chlorosomes are missing from the introduction, and such information should be summarized and briefly presented to give the Wikipedia audience some basic descriptions of chlorosomes. The overview also contains the information about the background knowledge of GSB, and these sentences can be modified such as “The chlorosomes in GSB facilitate photosynthesis and electron transportation under deep marine environment”. Additionally, the use of “somewhat” is not a precise comparison between GSB and FAP.
 * In terms of contents, there are a detailed summary of a specific research paper and a future expectation under the second and third subtitles. These contents are not neutral and necessary so they should be replaced by other reliable references. Moreover, the subtitles are not consistent and well-organized; they could be edited as “Species with chlrosomes”, “Chlorosomal structure” and “Pigment organization in chlorosomes”.
 * The article contains only four references, and the first citation link is not valid. The style of the citations are not consistent as well, e.g., the use of “et al”. More information about chlorosomes can be obtained from different reliable journals, such as the proteins , the biogenesis and baseplate structure of chlorosomes, and should be added into the Wikipedia page.
 * To sum up, the article is classified as start class and few discussions on the talk page, indicating the article requires further editing. -RayFengvon (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

MICB302 Assignment#2

 * Oligotrophic organisms have distinct metabolic characteristics comparing to the species that are well-known. This Wikipedia article does not have enough useful information about such organisms and their living styles. In order to improve the content, more reliable references about oligotrophic physiology and ecology are needed to be added.
 * For a living organism, energy and electron sources must be taken from the environment to fulfill its metabolic requirement. For a better growth of their population, many species are more likely to live in nutrient-rich environments. Thus, it is surprised that some organisms can survive in extreme environments. Under the environmental conditions without sufficient resources, the organisms have diverse strategies to solve the problem, such as obtaining limited nutrients by versatile catabolic pathways, living with other species symbiotically etc . These kinds of environmental adaptations may have evolutionary and ecological significance.
 * In this article, only oligotrophic plants were mentioned. Distributing among the huge portion of biosphere, bacteria and archaea also have the capacity of adapting to the oligotrophic environments. The rest of the article introduces the oligotrophic environments with specific samples in different continents. From the course scope of MICB 301, the missing information for oligotrophic microorganisms should be illustrated to enhance the quality of this Wikipedia page. Moreover, the first two citations are about the word origin of “oligotrophy”. These references do not contribute significantly to the topics.
 * More sources about the oligotrophy can be used to help general public to understand the features of this type of organisms. For example, the book written by Richard Y. Morita, Bacteria in Oligotrophic Environments: Starvation-Survival Lifestyle, has described the oligotrophic environments and species systematically. Some recent research papers focus on the genomic analysis and mathematical modelling . I suggest that the oligotrophic environments could be classified into soil, coal, sediment and marine etc . For each type of the environments, the common characteristics and the nutrients that are present could be stated, as well as the organisms living there and their metabolic activities. -RayFengvon (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Zirui Feng's Peer Review
Compared to the original article, the edited one not only extends the length of the article, but also the depth of it. More general knowledge of oligotrophic environment is stated by using simple language, which can help readers without biological knowledge to understand this article better.

Overall, three parts of content are added, and they are evenly distributed by the author. Their contents are strongly supported by three primary literatures. As I read through those literatures, the study focuses are closely related to this article, and the author did a good job paraphrasing the literatures and stating them in a neutral tone.

Moreover, a subcategory is added. This new category narrows down its topic and specifies the focus of its following content which may help its readers to decide whether to keep reading or not. This can also help future work to be added such as adding “oligotrophic rock environment” as another subcategory.

However, some sentences should be shortened and jointed together. In the second paragraph, there are many sentences describing the soil environment. The fourth and fifth sentences are talking about the same topic, and I think they can be merged together and stated in a more concise way. More conjunction words should be used to connect sentences together so that readers can understand the logic between each sentence.

More terminologies should be added. While talking about specific examples, some mechanisms that those organisms use should be clarified and briefly explained so that readers can learn from primary literature indirectly while reading this article.

A conclusion should be given. In the end of examples, the author should draw a conclusion that relates to the significance of the micoorganisms mentioned and the contribution they have to science society and future studies.

Jiajie Ma (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)