User talk:Vengeanceknight/sandbox

[Week 1 Assignment: Article Evaluation] The quality of the article Bacterial Circadian Rhythm is satisfactory. It presents the topic with relevant information neutrally, and provides well-cited facts from reliable academic papers without apparent plagiarism. Nevertheless, there are two major areas this article can be improved upon. The first is its overall structure. It appears that some subsections in this article should be combined together, instead of being presented as a standalone sections. For example, the section “Global regulation...” should be incorporated into the section “Molecular mechanism...”, since although both sections discuss the effects of circadian rhythm on prokaryotes at a genetic and molecular level, the only difference between them is the type of effects being discussed. Therefore, it is more logical to incorporate the smaller section, “Global regulation...”, into the larger one, “Molecular mechanism...”. The second area of improvement is the somewhat outdated sources. Among the 35 articles cited, the latest one was published in 2009. With the current year being 2017, during the past 8 years there could have been many more recent researches that shed newer insights into the topic. For example, the papers "Evidence of circadian rhythms in non-photosynthetic bacteria?" and "Structural basis of the day-night transition in a bacterial circadian clock." published in 2010 and 2017 respectively, both provide newer information on the topic. Overall, regardless of the problems with the layout and slightly outdated citations, the article Bacterial Circadian Rhythm is a solid article that presents the topic with a neutral tone and relevant information supported by strong citations. -Vengeanceknight (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * [Week 2 Assignment: Evaluation of Article-to-be-Edited (Geobacter)]
 * Overall, the page Geobacter on Wikipedia is of high notability, as there is a great deal of coverage on the topic outside of Wikipedia. A simple search of the word Geobacter on JSTOR database yields 212 peer-reviewed scholarly journals, with 65 published between 2010 and 2017. A further search on the UBC database shows that in the last 12 months alone, 488 peer-reviewed scholarly journals on Geobacter have been published. Furthermore, as the microorganisms in the Geobacter genus are not fabricated and/or created by humans, it is difficult for individuals and/or groups to be affiliated, making the topic very independent. Therefore, it is self-evident that the topic has a multitude of sources that are reliable, independent, and provide a deal of great coverage. This is not to say, however, the page Geobacter requires no improvement. On the contrary, the page is poorly written, and lacks a terrible amount of information. Using the sub-section under “Application”, “Microgravity”, as an example, it not only contains just one phrase that is rather incomprehensible, but also has no citation to support the claimed made in the phrase. Another prominent problem with the Geobacter page is its lack of distinct sections. In the section “Application”, the first two paragraphs do not discuss the potential applications of Geobacter. Instead, they explain the general metabolic mechanisms of Geobacter. Although it maybe appear logical to explain a little mechanistic details of the metabolic pathways of Geobacter in the “Application” section, as it can enhance understanding of how the microbes may be utilized in biodegradation and bioremediation, the fact that there is a sub-section, “Biodegradation and bioremediation”, devoted to its discussion makes explaining mechanistic details unnecessary. Therefore, it is recommended that these first two paragraphs should be reorganized and expanded with newer information, so that a standalone section, “Metabolic mechanisms”, can be created to discuss the metabolic mechanism of Geobacter alone. Taking into account the fact that many of the most recent researches on microorganisms in the Geobacter genus center on the genome and protein of their metabolic pathway, the creation of this new section is urgently needed. -Vengeanceknight (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Vengeanceknight's (Sam Zhai) Peer Review
The placement of the edited and added content is appropriate and improves the flow of the article. Where in the original article under “Applications” heading the author included a paragraph on the Geobacter’s metabolic activities, the student decided to create an entirely new section which emphasizes the information more. The overall content is relevant to the rest of the article as Geobacter’s metabolism is an important topic, and the added material provides a deeper understanding of the topic, as the student has included examples of different metabolic mechanisms the species use that the original author did not include. Overall, the student did a great job of paraphrasing from their sources.

Under the Metabolic Mechanisms heading, the student provided information on how some Geobacter, such as Geobacter uraniireducens use a variety of extracellular electron transport mechanisms (citation #8). Then, it is followed by an example on one way of transporting electrons: via a quinone-mediated electron shuttle (citation #9). However, in citation #8, “Extracellular electron transfer via microbial nanowires”, does not state that G. uraniireducens can transport electrons via a quinone-mediated electron shuttle. In citation #9 however, “The Low Conductivity of Geobacter uraniireducens Pili Suggests a Diversity of Extracellular Electron Transfer Mechanisms in the Genus Geobacter” states that the Geobacter sulferreducens use this mechanism. This will confuse other readers as it is not distinctly stating which species is using that the quinone-mediated electron shuttle mechanism. I suggest the student to distinctly write which species uses that mechanism in that example.

The Applications heading still contains a general blurb on Geobacter’s metabolism. This may confuse the reader if there are two headings that talk about metabolism, especially when the Metabolic Mechanisms heading precedes the Applications heading. One can include a Metabolism heading as an introduction to Geobacter metabolism followed by a “Metabolic Mechanisms” subheading. The Applications heading can also be another subheading, as the Geobacter metabolism relates to their application. As well, I believe that the “Another interesting metabolic phenomenon…” line in the second paragraph of the “Metabolic Mechanisms” heading is not necessary and should be removed to keep the article neutral and unbiased, thus improving their tone.

Mahta Amanian (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)