User talk:Sophiakim56/sandbox

Assignment 2
Prochlorococcus

The article Prochlorococcus merits consideration due to its high notability and global importance. It has significant coverage as there are 21 sources cited from various reliable publishers and peer-reviewed journals such as Nature and Science. Most of the sources are independent of the subject and upon researching, there are hundreds of more studies available on this topic published by reputable journals. Moreover, Prochlorococcus is a photosynthetic bacteria that plays a significant role in oligotrophic oceans. For this assignment, improvements can be made on the following two sections: Morphology and Distribution.

The Morphology section has missing and outdated information. There is only one citation from a source that was published nearly two decades ago. This section can be improved by introducing updated research findings from several reliable sources to ensure that the material is accurate. For example, Prochlorococcus utilize sulfolipids (sulfur and sugar) instead of phospholipids in their membrane to survive in phosphate deprived environments. This adaptation has allowed them to avoid competition with heterotrophs that are dependent on phosphate for survival.

Furthermore, the Distribution section is also missing some details and cites an unreliable source. There is a brief mention of the temperature and latitude range in which Prochlorococcus thrive, but the article fails to mention that the distributions fluctuate seasonally. In addition, Prochlorococcus do not have mechanisms to degrade reactive oxygen species. Therefore, they are more plentiful in the presence of heterotrophs that have catalase abilities and rely on these heterotrophs to protect them. Finally, in the last sentence of the section, there is a citation from an inappropriate source. The information comes from a blog post on the National Public Radio. It states that twenty percent of oxygen in the world is provided by photosynthesis of Prochlorococcus but this is not accurate. In fact, the estimate ranges from thirteen to forty-eight percent.

Overall, the article Prochlorococcus is very notable and can be improved by adding more details from recent studies.

Sophiakim56 (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 1
Anaerobic Respiration

The article anaerobic respiration is well-structured and unbiased. It has a clear lead that explains very briefly what anaerobic respiration is, and the key points a reader would need to know about the topic. After an explanation of anaerobic respiration, the article covers more aspects of the topic by describing the importance (ecologically and economically) and gives a table of examples. All the facts are presented without bias and are easy to understand. One area to improve however, is to emphasize the details on anaerobic respiration more, instead of thoroughly explaining concepts that contrast from the topic. The article goes too in depth about fermentation and aerobic respiration which is important to distinguish but not necessary to over represent.

Furthermore, there are reliable references for the facts that are cited; most of the nine sources are from reliable publishers and peer-reviewed journals. For instance, a few of the sources are from NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) and ScienceDirect. However, the article does not have enough citations. Many of the facts are not evidently general knowledge and should be given credit. For example, in the table describing the various types of respiration, several reduction potentials are stated but only one value is cited.

Overall, the article is easy to follow, but more effort needs to be put in to balancing the content and adding more citations.

Sophiakim56 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

RayFengvon's peer review
First of all, the revised article keeps its original structure, including the morphology and distribution of Prochlorococcus. All the references are placed at the bottom of the page, and the newly added references are properly cited with necessary information. This arrangement of the paragraphs is reasonable for reading.

The edited content is basically relevant to the topics of Prochlorococcus, and it provides the information of membrane lipid and catalase activity of Prochlorococcus contributing to a better understanding of the original article. The editing is neutral and objective, without offering any strong opinions or attitudes. There are no grammatical or spelling errors in the editing. Overall, the coherence of the editing is smooth and different ideas are closely connected. The original article and the edited section are linked by proper transition words.

However, there might be a gap between the morphology of Prochlorococcus and its uptake of sulfolipids. More information may be needed to explain how sulfolipids used in the synthesis of membrane lipids contribute to the morphology of Prochlorococcus. If there is not enough evidence suggesting its morphology is beneficial from sulfolipids, then the content may be moved into a new section, for example, ecological adaptation. This might be a better way to arrange the content. Furthermore, instead of explaining terminology in parentheses, such as “sulfolipids (sulfur and sugar)”, making an internal Wikipedia link might be a better choice.

In terms of references, the links under the article can direct to the original sources. The sources are reliable and independent research papers. The edited portions of the article cover the main results from these papers. The edited information under each subtitle is from separated papers, indicating the references contribute to the editing evenly. The sentences seem to be paraphrased appropriately and to summarize the important content from the references. However, some sentences still need citations to support, such as “The coccoid shaped cells are non-motile and free-living”. Adding reliable citations can improve the quality of the article. -RayFengvon (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)