User talk:Susanzc/sandbox

Assignment 1
Phototroph

In the lead paragraph, there are no citations, therefore the validity of the statements is questionable. It also states that "Many, but not all, phototrophs often photosynthesize", however it does not provide clear information about non-photosynthetic phototrophs, nor does it cite a source. In addition, there are grammatical and spelling mistakes such as "organims". The examples given in the last sentence of this paragraph are limited to bacteria, which is unrepresentative of all phototrophs and would be improved if higher-order organisms such as plants were included.

The section on photoautotrophs is significantly longer than photoheterotrophs, even though they have equal importance. The sentence "In contrast ... rather than water" in the photoautotrophs section is wordy and confusing, due to grammatical errors. In the ecology subsection, the phrase "might have" is used, without any references to a valid source. The last sentence of the "ecology" subsection could be improved by providing references to specific organisms. The photoheterotrophs section is missing an "ecology" subsection entirely, which leaves out important information about their ecological significance and also interrupts the consistency of the article. In the "See also" section, a link is given to Prototroph, which redirects to the Auxotrophy page. This link should be renamed for clarity.

Overall, this article lacks some references and clarity of information. On the "talk" page, there have been several conversations started regarding misleading classifications within the article.

Susanzc (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2: Choosing a Wikipedia article
I have chosen the wiki article on Extracellular polymeric substance to edit, as it is highly notable in microbial physiology, but it is stub article with missing information. I believe this page is lacking significant information, as EPS is essential in the formation of biofilms in bacterial colonies, and is critical in determining survival success.

I will edit this article by expanding on the "Function" section, as the content is quite limited. This section generalizes extracellular polymeric substances as exopolysaccharides, however, the term "extracellular polymeric substances" should be used instead. It provides a more accurate description of the substance as the matrix may consist of nucleic acids and lipids as well, mentioned in the introduction of the article. This section only briefly discusses the role of EPSs in biofilms, such as adhesion and infection. The validity of these statements is questionable, as there are no citations and therefore no method of verification. I would like to elaborate on these processes and add the missing citations needed for these statements, referencing Harimawan & Ting (2016) on adhesion, and Meyle (2012) on infection mechanisms. Although the lead section of the wiki page mentions "considerable progress" in industrially significant EPS, there is only one example of industrial use given in the "Functions" section. After further investigating the functions of EPS, I have discovered significant coverage on the ecological role of EPS and believe that this is notable information missing from this wiki article. According to research conducted by Pal & Paul (2008), as well as Li et al. (2016), EPSs also play a role in redox capability and metal adsorption, affecting biogeochemical cycling and bioremediation. The ecological importance of EPS is underrepresented in this wiki article, as it currently only discusses function specific to organisms themselves, and not in a larger, more global perspective. Nutrient cycles and bioremediation are significant environmental processes, and should be incorporated into this article. I would like to add this to the "Functions" section, perhaps as a subsection titled "Ecology" for organization and clarity.

Susan Chen (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Susanzc's Peer Review
Structure The overall structure and organization are logical. Rearranging the intro paragraph of function was smart, because now it gives a general overview and background to start, instead of delving into specific examples right away. This improves the flow. I would move the mention of nitrogen fixing bacteria to the ecology section from the intro, as it has ecological significance. The rhizosphere is a major component of soil food webs and nutrient cycling in ecosystems.

Content The added content draws no conclusions and uses an objective presentation of journal findings. The main idea about bioremediation was left somewhat unexplored. A better connection to how exactly EPS can be used to treat wastewater would support the paragraph’s main idea better. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4773473/ specifically shows how the EPS can help remove toxins like ammonium from wastewater.

Sources All sources were peer reviewed, academic journals directly addressing the aspects of the article. Citation 4 is an excellent source that was lacking from the original article, as it mentions the specific ways EPS can contribute to the pathogenicity of bacteria. All the sources could be easily found via their link in the references of the article, and the correct page numbers and dates/authors were used. The main findings of the articles were presented exactly as the journal presented them.

Writing The overall tone of the article is neutral, with a logical flow of ideas and minimal interruptions. The sentence on the rhizosphere is incredibly long. I would break it into two smaller sentences, or try to use more concise language. In terms of clarity, the sentence about increased stability in sediment is ambiguous as to what exactly is stable. Is it the sediment, the biofilm, or something else? Explicit clarification here would help, since the information is relevant to the geomicrobiological context of the paragraph. Aidan Canil (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)