User talk:Sstarko7/sandbox

Through the evaluation process I was able to learn hands on about how things are organized within the different tabs of a standard wikipedia page and get some more practice using the program. The process also helped understand how to more critically approach writing a wikipedia article and helps set a good example what the tone of the article should be and how exactly to avoid bias/adding your own opinion.

Sstarko7 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
The edits succeed at removing unrelated or incomplete information from the “Symbiosis” section in the original article. The theories about the past shifts in atmosphere because of cyanobacteria, starting from the third sentence were not even supported by any references, therefore; their removal were justified. Another positive change made to the content and structure is the addition of two new subsections “Mutualism” and “Amenalism” under the leading paragraph for “Symbiosis”. This helps the readers get a greater depth of knowledge on some examples of symbiosis relationships such as mutualism and amenalism. In both paragraphs, the content is detailed enough to explain how these relationships work. For example, the mutual relationship between S organism and Methabacterium bryantii in second paragraph is explained in good depth. One improvement that can be made is the addition of more information to the two leading sentences just under “Symbiosis”. This will give a better understanding of the importance of symbiosis.

Regarding the overall structure and placement of topics, if the “Symbiosis” section was to have its place switched with “Roles”, then the overall flow of the article would make more logical sense. First an overview, then history, then roles, and after that interactions has a structure that resembles an inverted triangle, going into more detail as the article progresses.

In terms of references, the leading paragraph just under Symbiosis, requires major attention. The reference cited is irrelevant to the content written. Some appropriate citations are needed. The third paragraph (Amenalism) only uses one reference, so it can use one or two more references to give it a more balanced and neutral view. Overall, there is no sign of close paraphrasing and it is concise. It remains to be said however, that large chunks of text are sourced only once near the end of the paragraph, as seen in the third paragraph just under subsection “Amenalism”. While this is not a significant issue, it would be better to cite the source immediately after every sentence that includes major facts. Also, citations are needed for the first sentence of both Mutualism and Amenalism paragraphs, and more accurate references for the leading paragraph.

Aryag469 (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)