User talk:Pheenee/sandbox

Assignment 1: Critique of an Article | Microbial loop

At first glance, microbial loop seems to be a start-class article lacking polished citations. Instead of using footnotes, which are clear and easy to follow in web media, a traditional bibliography is listed instead. This not only takes up space with in-text citations but also makes editing and source checking harder for other editors. The picture included has no descriptive caption and lacks a source. Almost the entire lead and the beginning of the "History" section is plagiarised and not even from a reliable source, but rather a study guide based on a textbook. This was found through a simple Google search. Aside from these serious pitfalls, even if the article had correctly formatted citations it would still be poorly written as most ideas lack citation altogether. Many terms are not explained and not hyperlinked, such as oligotrophic and eutrophic, even though there are existing Wikipedia articles on said topics. The entire flow of the article is confusing as the topic is a biological and ecological process, yet the details are mostly explained in the "History" section. Instead, a brief background could've been given instead and sections detailing the different stages and levels of this microbial food web. Lastly, the article could be updated as a whole - the most recent citation is from 2008. Newer research has shown important roles of not only Cyanobacteria and Bacteroidetes, but Actinobacteria as well.

Pheenee (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2: Choosing an Article | Purple bacteria

The topic of purple bacteria is highly notable as extensive research has been done on their biological and metabolic processes as well as their possible practical applications such as hydrogen gas production and arsenic bioremediation. These studies have significantly contributed to our current understanding of not only phototrophic mechanisms but also photosynthesis and its possible origins.

Apart from flaws such as confusing hyperlinking (linking oxygen instead of anoxygenic), plagiarism and lack of references, the article heavily lacks comprehensive information on purple bacteria. Only purple sulfur bacteria (PSB) and purple non-sulfur bacteria (PNSB) are acknowledged, even though other subcategories such as aerobic anoxygenic phototrophs (AAP) are also classified as PNSB and should at the very least be mentioned.

The different metabolisms of purple bacteria are very diverse and not accurately represented in the article's metabolism section. To start with, the description of the electron transport chain is overly simplified. The light-harvesting complexes, which absorb light at specific wavelengths and transfer this energy to the reaction centre are left out. The "special pigment pair" described is unclear and should refer to either the chlorophyll molecules P870 or P960, the latter of which is not even named. Charge separation and redox of quinones is not explained in detail, and the cytochrome bc₁ complex which pumps the protons across the membrane is unmentioned as well. Other absent details include the cyclic nature of the ETC and often anaerobic condition needed for autotrophy. A figure depicting the ETC would be very beneficial in visually representing this process.

Other types of metabolism such as chemotrophy and photoheterotrophy are completely absent and need to be described for a true representation of the diverse range which exists in purple bacteria. The discovery and knowledge of these other metabolism types are key to our understanding of their significance in the carbon cycle, freshwater and marine ecosystems, as well as possible bioremediation applications. All of the aforementioned topics should be added to the article. The history and evolution sections can also be expanded upon further, perhaps mentioning the possible evolutionary ETC progression between purple bacteria, cyanobacteria, and chloroplasts.

Pheenee (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Pheenee peer review

The article does a very good job at picking up important points from the “original article”, and leaving out the un-necessary information. The fifth sentence was taken out from the “original” article as discussing separate groups of the purple bacteria has no relevance to the “metabolism” section. Moreover, looking at the overall article, the placement of the “metabolism” section is appropriate relative to other sections. The section itself is broken down to three parts. This allows the section to start as general (the first part), and gets more detailed reading through. An improvement would be smoother transitions between the paragraphs. The content presents the important information regarding the purple bacteria metabolism, and it is related to the rest of the article. In fact the biggest improvement to the article would be discussing reverse electron flow in the purple bacteria ETC which results in NADPH production that is necessary for anabolism. Including information like this that regards anabolism would make this section better as metabolism consists of both anabolism and catabolism. The rest of the section goes into enough detail. For instance, the ICM components are described in enough detail for the reader to understand it. The details are well supported by primary literature from various sources meaning that it includes many points of views on the presented topic. This also implies that the writing of the article is concise. Comparing the article to the sited references, it can be seen that the materials presented provide a neutral point of view, flow easily and are not closely -paraphrased. An improvement to the writing would be breaking down some of the long sentences that are hard to follow (for example the third sentence of the second paragraph). Moreover, the last sentence of the second paragraph lacks references, I would suggest taking it out or expanding upon it. Negarrez (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC) References — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negarrez (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)