User talk:Yasmine Chung/sandbox

Article Critique (Peptidoglycan)
This article lacks a logical and balanced structure, contains information from unreliable sources, and commits plagiarism, but is written in a neutral tone and contains key points on the topic.

Regarding the overall structure, the leading section is too detailed, containing information that is reiterated in following subsections. As well, the subsections are not well organized. For instance, "Similarity to pseudopeptidoglycan" mainly compares structural similarities between archaea and bacteria, and could therefore be included near the end of the "Structure" subsection. In addition, the graphics are inappropriately placed; a diagram concerning inhibition is located under "Structure". Lastly, the section on biosynthesis is disproportionately detailed.

Regarding the references, the first citation leads to a non-academic, personal website. Textbooks or academic journals, which are more reliable sources, should have been used. Additionally, the information from the section on biosynthesis is largely drawn from a single book. Expanding the range of resources may reduce bias or errors that arise from relying on a single source. Finally, the hyperlink for the ninth citation does not appear to be functional.

Regarding plagiarism, two sentences attached to the first citation are almost identical to referenced sentences found on the cited website, save for the omission of a couple words. Paraphrasing the information from the website would prevent this situation.

-Yasmine Chung (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Article Critique and Improvements (Dissimilatory metal-reducing bacteria)
Overall, this article is well-written, with appropriate sources from peer-reviewed publications. Plagiarism and close paraphrasing are also absent. However, the amount of content is lacking. Existing subsections could include more information, and the addition of more subsections could be useful in organizing the article’s general structure.

For instance, the two subsections on terminal electron acceptors and secondary mineral formation mainly contain lists, but do not discuss the subjects in much detail. More information could be included on these subjects, or the subsections may be removed altogether and the contents could be added to a new, encompassing subsection about the general process of dissimilatory metal reduction. The different methods of acquiring insoluble metals, such as through the use of nanowires and chelating agents, is also relevant to the general process of metal reduction, and could be added to the article. Furthermore, only iron-reducing bacteria are mentioned. Material on uranium- and manganese-reducing bacteria, for instance, could be used to expand the scope of the article. Finally, the applications and ecological role of iron-reducing bacteria, like bioremediation of contaminated groundwater, may be included near the end of the article to provide insight into the significance of this subject, and to also offer topics for further reading.

In terms of notability, this topic has received notable coverage in research papers and other academic publications. For instance, one article discusses the proteins involved in the process of dissimilatory metal reduction. Another article focuses on the explanation of how different organisms use different metals for respiration. The applications of dissimilatory metal reduction, such as bioremediation, is discussed in a separate paper, as well. The articles mentioned above each reference a number of other research papers on the topic of microbial metal reduction, indicating that a significant amount of research has been performed in this area.

-Yasmine Chung (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yasmine's Peer Review (from Sara)
The edits on the chosen section are clearly presented, relevant to the article content, and balanced in terms of coverage. The new information presented in these edits are accurate and well-sourced, using a number of journal articles from independent sources, and chosen literature supports the statements. Within the context of the article as a whole, the added information is non-redundant, as the article clearly lacks some foundational knowledge on the field. The writing is concise and at an appropriate level for general audiences, reflecting important information on the subject. While these edits increase the article quality substantially, and render a more informative and balanced article, certain changes to the section can be made. In particular, the information that was added (content) does not seem to necessarily fit the title of the section. While the section title was appropriate prior to the edits, considering the new information added the title can be changed or expanded. As well, adding more detail on each dissimilatory metal reduction method mentioned can enhance the quality and richness of the article; conciseness is a valuable feature, but a few more details would not take away from the clarity and flow of the writing. With the addition of more details, there would also be further grounds for breaking up this section into multiple paragraphs that have more internal cohesion, as opposed to one paragraph that seems to jump between ideas. Overall, the edits made are a much-needed improvement. The balanced perspective, conciseness and clarity of writing, and the presentation of information that is critical for this article (considering the subject area) are strong points of the edits made. --Sarasunadalkilic (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)