User talk:Vivientan/sandbox

Assignment 2: Psychrophile
Focusing on the ‘Biology’ section, this section provided little evidence/information to support the survival mechanism of the organism, which is quite vital. Much of the research areas of focus for this organism is on their survival, such as adaptations and cellular compartments function in a sub-zero environment. The minimal coverage presented shows an inadequate representation of the importance of this topic.

An area for improvement would be the ‘Psychrotrophic bacteria’ section; this topic is slightly different from the main topic of the article, but is merged together due to its low notability. There is a classification (specifically a temperature range for thriving, surviving) that is used to distinguish between the two, but the distinction presented in this section isn’t as clear and concise. To improve, the differing classifications should be used explicitly mentioned. As mentioned above, there is much literature detailing the survival mechanisms of this organisms that is absent in the article. Therefore, addition of sources supporting this, as well as a separate heading allocating all of this information should be added.

The ‘References’ section of the article contains a long list of references listed for a relatively short article, however most of these are not directed towards the main topic; most are towards ‘Psychrotrophic bacteria’ section, which is slightly different than the ‘Psychrophile’ topic, due to their differences in classification. Therefore, these sources cannot apply to this topic. With that aside, there still is a good amount of references. Upon investigating the sources these references lead to, a majority linked to scholarly journals or research papers dedicated to this sole topic. Many of these sources discussed the microbial profile of this organism, as well as general research on the organism as to how it is able to survive and proliferate. When searching this topic in a search, many results popped up discussing about various cellular components of different types of psychrophilic organisms. The abundance of different aspects of research done again shows how this is a fairly notable topic.

Vivientan (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Critique of the Chlorosome Wikpedia Article
The minimal number of sources listed, as well as the fact that it is a ‘Start’ class article, may leave readers questioning the article’s reliability. A majority of the information, especially those in the ‘Structure’ and ‘An alternative energy source’ heading, are ‘hard facts’ and must be cited, as per the training module; these were left uncited.

The listed sources were from scholarly journals and research papers, so they’re trustworthy and not opinionated or persuasive. Most sources were published almost 10-15 years ago; if any discoveries were made since then, an update of the sources must be done. Upon checking the linked citations, they did link to the correct source, and no close paraphrasing or copying was found.

The material in the article is relevant to the topic, and a good overview of the topic was presented, but the flow of information is slightly awkward. The information goes off tangent after the first paragraph of ‘Organization…pigments’; a subheading should be added to denote a change in information flow. In addition, a reference was made to ‘the team’; nowhere was its context discussed. The context was implied through visiting the cited link, but should be explicitly explained/mentioned.

The distribution of the material content was unbalanced; a heavy emphasis was placed upon the organization, but little on the structure section. Both are of equal importance so an equal amount of input should be placed in both areas. Regardless, a neutral perspective was presented, as no bias words were used throughout the article. Vivientan (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Jennifer Chen's Peer Review
The breaking down of the biology section into multiple subsections is a great structural choice. The biology section was originally a little disorganized because the information that is now grouped together was originally scattered throughout the section. A great job was done to ensure that each subsection only contains relevant information. However, there is twice as much information in the "Survival" subsection as there is in any other subsection, so an improvement could be made to balance the subsections out.

The sources of the edited text are well chosen as they are all from peer-reviewed journals known for fact-checking and neutrality. They are also all independent sources not directly related to the subject. However, in the references section, there is one article, “A Low Temperature Limit for Life on Earth" that is referenced twice with the only difference in the citations being the order of the authors.

The content of the added text is mostly well chosen. Both the information about the lipid cell membrane and the role of antifreeze proteins are great additions because it is clear from the referenced articles that both those factors are significant to the survival of psychrophile. However, I don’t think it is necessary to mention previous beliefs on the role of antifreeze proteins as those beliefs have been refuted and are no longer relevant.

The added content is also well written. The added content has appropriate explanations and depth, has a good flow of ideas, is presented with neutrality, and does not use close-paraphrasing. However, there are some missing references because although every sentence that was added contains facts, not every sentence is referenced. The sentence, “…by supercooling the interior fluid” is also a little confusing as I can not tell from the sentence what the purpose of supercooling the interior fluid is.

Jenniferchen41 (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)