Talk:Chrysochromulina

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SamiT, Aclark96, Carsonshi95, Saweradhaliwal. Peer reviewers: Spflueger, Mymack, Isabeljankowski, Rooner21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Isabel's Peer Review

Lead

Include some basic ecological background in the lead/intro (ie. is it a marine phytoplankton? freshwater?). Otherwise good intro and image Isabeljankowski (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)isabeljankowski

Morphology

Does the length measure include or exclude the flagella? Also since it is phototrophic, you could add something about pigments. Isabeljankowski (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)isabeljankowski

Significance

Title could be "Ecological Significance". Grammatical error, "forming toxic blooms" -> "toxic bloom formation". Maybe add more about spatial and temporal distribution, like is it found in fresh or marine waters, where in the world, what time of year, etc... You could also add about its role in the marine food web (ie. who its eats it, what does it eat) Isabeljankowski (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)isabeljankowski

Toxicity

Good context on nutrients, but I am not entirely sure what the toxin does? Why is it toxic? Isabeljankowski (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)isabeljankowski

Blooms

Really interesting! Just needs to be proof-read a bit Isabeljankowski (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)isabeljankowski

Two Major Viruses

Maybe change the title to "Major viral infections", otherwise it isn't very obvious what this section is about. Otherwise good Isabeljankowski (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)isabeljankowski

Cameron's Peer Review

Overall, really like the professional look and layout of your page. Good work so far! Rooner21 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

General Suggestions and Improvements

• Introduction: I think the introduction could use some additional information added to it. What exactly is the functional group of this species? Is it a phytoplankton? What is a haptophyte? List off some well known types of haptophytes (eg. Coccolithophores).
• Morphology: what are the plate-like scales made of? Is the haptonema used for locomotion? I would add a link to “flagella” wiki page.
• Significance: If they “hold an essential role in carbon sequestration” then explain what this role is! Also the “T” in Tobin should be lowercase.
• Toxicity: Haptophytes are very well known for producing DMS (dimethyl sulfide) gas, which is important in providing the nucleus for cloud formation. Probably interesting to mention this. Like Isabel said, more info on the toxins would be nice. What are the names of the toxins that are produced by Chrysochromulina?
• Blooms and Viruses: Bloom section is nice with lots of details. Any blooms in the Pacific? Liked the section on the known infecting viruses! Really smart addition to the page. I agree with Isabel...needs a more intuitive title.

--Rooner21 (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Potential Additions

I took a look at some other phytoplankton wiki pages and noted how they were structured and I think your page would benefit from adding some additional sections. These could include:

• Ecology related: role in the food web, predator/prey relations, nutrient requirements, life cycle, evolution, fossil record, etc
• Photosynthetic pigments

--Rooner21 (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Shannon's Peer Review

Intro

Overall I thought it was nice and broad and covered the main points of the organism but I think you should include where the organism is found and what organisms the toxin kills (ie. All marine life or just bacteria or humans too?).

Morphology

I think it would be best to link flagella to its appropriate wikipedia page, and also explain a bit more about what the organism attaches to (food or something else?).

Significance

I liked this section, I thought it was nice and concise, and the section title perfectly represented the info.

Toxicity

If the info is known (ie. if its been researched) then I think you should include how the toxin works, and what organisms it is toxic to.

Skagerrak and Kattegat

Overall I thought the content of the section was good, however I found it a bit too long and wordy, I think editing it to be more concise would help a lot.

Viruses

I agree with Isabel, I think the section should be renamed (perhaps Viral Pathogens) so someone skimming the article would know what that section is about. Spflueger (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Mackenzie's Peer Review

Overall this seems like a good start but need further expansion in most of the sections.

Intro

I think it's a bit too general. You also mention that under certain environmental conditions they can exhibit phagotrophy but I don't see it talked about in any of your later sections.

Morphology

What type of scales are they? What are they made of, silica or calcium? Are they present in all of your genus or are there a few exceptions such as for example naked dinoflagellates? Just some thoughts on how you can expand this.

Significance

Honestly most of this seems a bit disjointed, going from talking about toxic blooms to genome sequencing. Each sentence here sounds like itself could have a section. Maybe add carbon sequestration and blooms to an ecology section and have a section on the genetic information you have.

Toxicity

Could get a lot more detailed and biochemical about this section if you wanted to. Maybe range from information about general haptophyte toxicity to specifically your genus.

Skagerrak and Kattegat

This looks like a cool and well thought out sections, it just looks a lot bigger and kind of disproportionate from the rest of your page.

CpV-BQ1 and CeV-01B

First of all just change the title to something simpler like viruses. Second, theres information here but I don't see the function or impact of these viruses on your genus.

Rename or split of genus

[1] indicates that C. ericina is now Haptolina ericina. See also [2]. (In consequence, CeV is now H. ericina virus [3].

[4] says: "Haptolina brevifila, basionym: Chrysochromulina brevifilum"

Is this the result of a split or of a rename of the genus?

--Ernsts (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC) --Ernsts (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

C. polylepis

Chrysochromulina polylepis is now known as Prymnesium polylepis, so it cannot be the largest Chrysochromulina species. Source: Gorokhova E, Hajdu S, Larsson U (2014-11-13). Gomez-Gesteira M (ed.). "Responses of phyto- and zooplankton communities to Prymnesium polylepis (Prymnesiales) bloom in the Baltic Sea". PLoS One. 9 (11): e112985. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112985. PMC 4231118. PMID 25393031.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Alfa-ketosav (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)