Talk:Viral shunt

publishing

If there are any people with authorized privileges reading this, I did not mean to put the article's Sandbox Talk Page into mainspace. If there is any way to revert this action, I'll greatly appreciate it!

Juan Prieto (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW by Harjot Bhandol

• Use full names for DOM,POM in the introduction (and add DOM/POM in brackets). I notice you do so in the body of the wiki article but it is more appropriate upon first mention.
• “There is evidence as well of nitrogen (specifically ammonium) regeneration, …” This is an example of “making claims based on unnamed groups”
• There already exists a wiki page for microbial loop, do you think having this section goes a bit off topic? Although viral shunts are important in microbial loops perhaps just hyperlinking “microbial loop” along with a brief description is sufficient. OR somehow integrate the relationship between microbial loop and viral shunts. So far what I see is paragraphs discussing microbial loops and mechanisms but no mention of viral shunts. Perhaps consider moving the info in the introduction pertaining to viral shunts and microbial loops to this section (right now your intro tells me more about viral shunts than does the body of the wiki artcle).
• “Phototrophs are the main microbial primary producers in marine environments. When these phototrophs are infected by viruses…” combine these sentences to be more concise.
• “The effect of this energy flow results in the majority […]. This micro-level cycling reduces the amount of carbon […]” both these sentences are talking of the same thing, perhaps consider combining to be more concise.
• “Nitrogen gas from the atmosphere gets dissolved into surface of the water. Nitrogen fixing cyanobacteria, such as Trichodesmium and Anabaena, convert the nitrogen ….” Hyperlinking “nitrogen fixation” will allow you to avoid giving this description which is not directly related to viral shunts.
• “nitrification” can also be hyperlinked.
• Perhaps consider a section on the identity of viruses that may be involved in viral shunts (and list a as many as you can with hyperlinks included to avoid extensive descriptions (unless relevant)

Overall I notice that there are a few instances in your article where the connection between what is written and viral shunts is not clear. Harjot Bhandol (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review (Kathryn Choi)

Overview:

• don’t abbreviate DOM and POM from the very first sentence
• maybe provide a general estimate for the relative abundance of viruses compared to microbes (like discussed in class!)
• expand on what cell lysis is (maybe bring the information in the fourth paragraph up to the second?)
• first sentence in third paragraph is too long and needs to be broken down; overall 3rd paragraph is super informative but it took me longer to read through without getting lost
• a few grammar errors throughout

The Microbial Loop:

• this section doesn’t seem to be closely related to the topic of this page, since there is another wiki dedicated to the microbial loop; expand more on the mechanisms that viruses play within the microbial loop
• don’t just say “though varying processes”, maybe list a couple
• a few errors throughout (e.g. “prayed” -> “preyed”)

Recycling of Nutrients:

• this section has a better focus on how viruses impact the microbial loop
• not quite sure what this sentence means: “daily turnover rates are high due to viral infections, resulting in about 20 to 30 percent daily turnover of biomass” — does this mean 20-30% of turnover is attributed to viral infections? or that 20-30% of microbe biomass turns over daily?
• under Nitrogen Cycling: “If microbes are the ones to use it, the process of uptake of ammonium…” — this implies that other organisms use the ammonium, but there is no further explanation
• some errors with singular/plural nouns and articles, can be fixed by proof-reading

Overall good work! Although some sections can be simplified for easier understanding, it was very informative. Needs some work with content and changing some syntax.

Chkathryn (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Melissa Lee

Overview:

• It would be best to fully state your acronyms (ex. POM, DOM) before using them standalone!
• Because this is the overview, there's a lot of opportunity to link broader topics to their respective wikipedia pages! (ex. Linking 'phytoplankton')
• The general writing in this section is a bit confusing! It goes from describing the pathway to the effect of viruses! Maybe try and generalize first before going into specifics!
• Maybe explain why it's called the viral shunt? Apart from describing how it works, there's not much information on what the actual pathway is

The Microbial Loop:

• Give an introduction as to what the microbial loop is!
• Using "they" when referring to phytoplankton; maybe provide some of the more popular species, rather than generalizing
• I'm a bit confused as to how this section refers back to the overall pathway!

Recycling of Nutrients:

• DOM is defined here, but also in 'The Microbial Loop' section! Try and provide some continuity, and maybe just define it in the Overview
• The writing is kind of awkward, in that sentences don't really have much 'fact' in them? (Ex. Viral shunt has an effect on carbon cycling in marine environments; this can be elaborated way more! Discuss the kind of effect, temporal effects, etc.)
• Nitrogen Cycling - Cite your sources!!!

Effect on the marine food web:

• There can be a lot more discussion on this! (Ex. Talking about how certain species are affected, nutrient concentrations, etc.)
• There are probably a lot of sources that can support your ideas here!

There's a lot of cool ideas here - it just needs a bit more refinement and research! Mellirific (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review (Lubin Li)

Overview

 Informational section that has quite a bit of citations and references which is always good.  

 I would probably explain what POM or DOM are before abbreviating it, maybe link out to it if there are pages specifically on it as well just for ease in understanding for the average person. I would probably add maybe an image of some sort of a cell being lysed just to maybe add some background information for those that don't know what lyse means.

 Instead of writing "a study by Wilhelm....", i think it might be better to state the findings of the study and then the citation of the information will already take care of who did the study.

 I would also look into linking out to Biological Pump if there is a page for that so that readers can maybe get a better understanding of it since it is something that is brought up a couple times and you won't have to explain it.

Microbial Loop

 I would probably add a photo with a scale bar of the picoplankton you are are talking about just for a visual, otherwise it's a good explanation of how small microbes are efficient.

 I would probably refrain from using "as the name insinuates" as it really doesn't add any substance to your page and it doesn't help with getting to the point.

 I would probably add a visual on how the microbial loop process works for clarity and help in understanding.

Recycling of Nutrients

 I would probably look into adding more citations and references for the information that was in this section.
 I would probably also link out to remineralization or nitrification for more background information. The equation of nitrification was helpful though.

Luubie7 (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Harjot Gills peer review

Overall there is a decent amount of information included so far for this page. At a first glance it would be good to include some pictures throughout the sections as visual aids.

Lead - It would be good to write out what DOM and POM are in the intro so the reader can understand what it is when they start reading (I saw that this was done in a later section but its better to have it in the beginning). Possibly link to external wiki pages like 'Phytoplankton' and 'Zooplankton'. Look through sentence structure and correct grammar mistakes.

The Microbial Loop - Possibly link to the microbial loops wiki page instead to give the reader a brief background and then talk about the different microbes in the microbial loops section. Maybe add info about how the microbial loop relates back to viral shunts.

Recycling of Nutrients - Add in external wiki links for the reader to look at if they want. If DOM defined in the into, do not need to redefine. The reaction scheme is good however consider adding a picture of the carbon cycle. Look into adding more sources for carbon cycling as there is only one source now.

Effects on the Marine Food Web - Still needs works. Suggest adding pictures of the food web and the cycles. Add sources.

Hgill9 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Shea Thorne's Peer Review

Overview
Acronyms like DOM and POM should be written out at least once to provide context. Many terms in this section could also could be linked out to other wiki pages. The first paragraph could use another citation. The second paragraph could indicate the numerical difference in relative abundances between viruses and other organisms. The term viral shunt is also not explicitly defined past calling it a mechanism. A little effort to establishing continuity in the rest of the article could go a long way.

The Microbial Loop
There is a wiki page on the microbial loop already. Perhaps some of the information in this section could be made more viral shunt specific in order to differentiate it?

• Important Organisms

How are organisms "useful" in the loop: what does this mean? This could be framed to be more neutral potentially .

• Mechanism

I think that this section should go before important organisms as it defines the Microbial loop. "Varying processes" could be expanded upon.
Recycling of Nutrients

• Carbon Cycling

This section could include more hyperlinking. As is stated in the Nitrogen Cycling section, you could clearly state that the viral infections cause death leading to turnover.

• Nitrogen Cycling

This section requires citations. Some of the sentences require proofreading for clarity. The equation is a good addition.

Effect on the marine food web
Perhaps this section could be folded into one of the others or information in other sections could be cannibalized for this section.

Overall
This article has potential but is clearly a rough draft (which is fine!). I think the section on Microbial loop needs to be altered or removed to be more relevant to the Viral Shunt and different from the currently available wiki page. Some of your current citations lack hyperlinks. A figure or image could enhance the article. Good Job though!

Sheaster t (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ashley (Shepherd)'s Peer Review

Overview - Acronyms (POM, DOM) should be defined before being used. A lot of terms in this section could be linked to other wiki pages to improve clarity. Some of the sentences contain minor grammar/language errors and one run-on sentence. There are some references which are good but there is still a lot of information in this section which needs citations, and only one is labelled as 'citation needed'

The Microbial Loop - This section is organized very well and the information within the subsections are well summarized and there is minimal jargon. The jargon that is used is linked to a wiki page, and the writing flows well and has several reliable references. A few references are required but these are noted. The definitions of DOM and POM should appear in the introduction instead.

Recycling of Nutrients - This section is organized very well and is overall very informative and concise. I don't have much to suggest here but perhaps an image of the overall processes/interactions might be useful?

Effect on the marine food web - This section appears incomplete: it requires more information and references.

Overall - Great draft for a wiki page on the Viral shunt pathway, there is enough information here to expand on some topics. Few minor grammar and language errors throughout, the sections are well defined but the writing is concise and flows between main ideas very well. My main suggestion is to add some diagrams and improve the introductory paragraph language and structure.Drephehs (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Nick Hsieh's Peer Review

Overall this is a great start to your Wikipedia page. Everything is concise and organized in a way like a Wikipedia page. More citing and linking are needed throughout though. Adding more pictures or diagrams would be nice as well.

Overview

Define DOM and POM first then you can use the acronym. A couple of simple grammar mistakes need some fixing. This overview feels more like a separate topic of viral shunt than summarizing what you have in this Wikipedia page. Maybe explain the origin of viral shunt? how it was discovered?

The Microbial Loop

As there is already exist a Wikipedia page for Microbial Loop, maybe elaborate on the close relations between viral shunt and microbial loop. I personally do not think the subtopic of Important Organisms is relevant to viral shunt in general. You could put a condensed version of this in the overview. As for the Mechanism subtopic, would be beneficial to examine the relationships between the microbial loop and viral shunt rather than explaining what the microbial loop itself is.

Recycling of Nutrients

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_bacteriophage , this Wikipedia page already has a brief information on Carbon Cycle, can somehow find ways to connect the two Wikipedia pages instead.

Virovory

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2215000120 is supposed to be a significant discovery in this area, according to [1]. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:B9C2 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It might be an interesting section to add, but the observation is hardly new. See for example: int-res.com/articles/meps/94/m094p001.pdf https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-2229.12119 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.1c05518, as well as others. Curt99 06:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)