User talk:Spflueger/sandbox

Wiki Critique Phototrophy The Wikipedia article "Phototrophy" is off to a good start but still requires revisions in multiple places. While the hyperlinks link to the correct pages and it has good, unbiased references it is missing citations in multiple areas including but not limited to the introduction and the second paragraph under "Photoautotroph". There’s no overt evidence of plagiarism or close-paraphrasing however as mentioned previously there are too few citations for the amount of information and facts presented in the article. The article also needs to paint a clearer picture of all the types of different phototrophs and how they are similar (use light for energy) and how they differ from on another (electrons and carbon sources). The article briefly explains photolithoautotrophy, but does not mention any organisms other than plants that fall into this category, and does not provide a hyperlink to plant metabolism to provide a more in-depth picture of how photolithoautotrophy works. In addition, it seems necessary to mention (and hyperlink) mixotrophs who may use light and organic material as energy sources, or can switch depending on many factors including which is more present in the environment. The article also has a fair amount of information on cyanobacteria as an example of photoautotrophy. It should be enough to clearly explain how photoautotrophs are important to all ecosystems and provide links to various organisms if the reader is interested in learning more about the specific roles each organism plays in various ecosystems.

Schoonhoven, Erwin (January 19, 2000). "Ecophysiology of Mixotrophs" (PDF). Theoretical Biology. Retrieved September 15, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spflueger (talk • contribs) 06:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article “Nitrospira” is part of the Microbiology WikiProject and is rated stub-class on the quality scale and mid-importance on the importance scale. Nitrospira bacteria are notable because they are the only known bacterial group that is capable of complete nitrification (oxidizing ammonia to nitrate). Since their discovery in 1986 it was thought that they only carried out the second stage of nitrification (oxidizing nitrite to nitrate). However, in 2015 a group of researchers in the Netherlands discovered that Nitrospira could carry out complete nitrification. This was so surprising and unforeseen that two articles were published about it in the same issue of “Nature”. Prior to 2015 most research done on Nitrospira was focused on its uses for waste water treatment, its concentration in different natural water systems and on its genome. Despite all this research the “Nitrospira” Wikipedia article is quite short and sparse in information. This is likely due to the fact that until recently Nitrospira was not highly notable, it was just another group of bacteria capable of partial nitrification. Currently, the article only briefly mentions the discovery of two of species in this genus and states that some members can do complete nitrification. It fails to describe the various genes found in the species and what the sequences indicate about Nitrospira’s evolution. This may be due to the fact that much of the research done on the gene sequences just outlines predictions about the gene products of the organisms, but because its difficult to grow Nitrospira in culture these gene products have not been produced in vitro yet. The article also overlooks the significance and possible applications of the bacteria’s ability to do complete nitrification. In all likelihood this is due to the recentness of the discovery that they can do complete nitrification. In addition, Nitrobacter bacteria have been the star of most studies on partial nitrification because pure cultures of them can be made. Therefore, my edit to this article will consist of two additional subheadings: Nitrospira’s genome and its genome evolution, and the practical significance of complete nitrification.

GeorgeVKach's Peer Review
You did a very good job of elaborating on an important, yet underdeveloped wiki entry; I felt that the article was far more informative with your edits.

Overall structure/placement You did a good job of highlighting the most important info: this bacterium is notable for its ability to complete both steps of nitrification, and you focused your article on fleshing that out.

I think your edit would benefit from restructuring a bit: I would mention in the introductory paragraph that Nitrification is a two-step process normally accomplished by separate bacteria to highlight the importance of these bacteria. Furthermore, I might consider going into a tad more detail about the actual process of nitrification and what Commamox bacteria are, and then delving into the genome and potential applications in the main body.

Writing Overall, your writing was easy to read. You maintained objectivity very well and it felt like you were reporting on facts and the current state of literature, rather than trying to convince anybody of anything. Flicking through the literature, I did not spot any close paraphrasing.

However, as I mentioned earlier, I think your flow of ideas would benefit if you shift the structure around a bit. There are a few grammar and spelling errors that need to be tightened up a bit. Also, your first sentence under the “Genome” section is ambiguous: it could be interpreted as either “this bacterium was discovered by tracing these enzymes”, or as “these bacteria were found to have these enzymes”.

Reliable Sources You picked very good, reliable publications. You used multiple sources, and represented information accurately.

I think you covered the most important aspect of these bacteria, and while there is some more info out there in the literature, there was no way you could fit it in considering the parameters of this assignment. GeorgeVKach (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)