User talk:Saebr1/sandbox

Notes from WCR

• Subject-verb-object
• Maybe link in gall, agrobacterium, crown gall, grape, etc... consider relevant articles
• Fix Applications section - not actually applications. Revise to discuss its relevance in agriculture
• Primary vs. secondary references
• 6 of first 7 paragraphs start with A. vitis. Fix wording so less repetitive
• Introduction/first paragraph need to be as approachable as possible (neoplasm to tumor) (reduced yield to produce fewer grapes)(tumorigenic)
• Hosts section: A vitis most commonly infects grapevines
• Avoid "recent" and relative time. Instead use "As of X year..."

Saebr1 (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Response Letter

I have not yet received peer reviews for my article. However, I did receive feedback on my article during the whole-class review (WCR) session. Most of the changes suggested during WCR have been included, and I have included justification for any suggested changes that were not made.

The first paragraph of this article has been simplified so that it provides a better introduction to A. vitis. The phrase "exhibit reduced yield" was present in the original draft and has been modified so that the impact of infection on crops is clear. The word "neoplasm" was originally used instead of "tumor," and while the word "tumor" still links to the neoplasm article, the simpler language makes the article easier to understand. Later paragraphs use the word "tumorigenic," and while reviewers in WCR thought this word was too complex, it is the most accurate and concise scientific term. Including "tumor" in the first paragraph should provide context for later discussion of tumorigenic strains. I tried to find a Wikipedia page to explain tumorigenesis. Unfortunately, the carcinogenesis page focuses on human disease, so linking "tumorigenesis" to carcinogenesis could be confusing.

The taxonomic status of A. vitis is currently debated. I have set up the Rhizobium vitis page to redirect to Agrobacterium vitis to avoid confusion. Though the debate over taxonomy was mentioned in the first draft, I learned during the WCR session that I had not made this issue clear. Taxonomical studies are mentioned directly in the final version so that the audience has sufficient information on A. vitis' phylogeny.

In my first draft, descriptions of pathogenicity and other diseases were unclear. Upon review, I found that the information I'd originally included could be misread. These sections were modified as needed in the final draft, to avoid misrepresentations of research on A. vitis. Recent information on A. vitis (from post-2000 studies, using studies from 2015 whenever possible) has been included so that current knowledge of A. vitis is represented accurately. Words indicating relative time ("recent," "current") have been removed from the final article.

All information in the final article was present in the draft used in WCR, even if it wasn't worded correctly. The main improvements to the final draft are edits involving encyclopedic writing and fluidity. For instance, the first 8 sentences of the article all began with "A. vitis..." in the first draft, and that has been fixed in the final version. Taxobox formatting has been corrected. As mentioned in the first paragraph of this response letter, I made most of my edits in order to make sure the language in the final article was clear and accessible for a general audience.

Saebr1 (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Context Memo

Sorry that this memo is late! I misread the directions and thought I was supposed to include it in the final draft, not the first draft.

Quick links:
Final article in Wikipedia
Final article talk page with information for Wikipedia editors regarding changes to the original stub
Additional page (Rhizobium vitis) that redirects to my article
Final draft of article in my sandbox
Sandbox talk page with notes from whole class review, response letter, and context memo

My article, linked above, was originally a two-sentence stub. I wanted to expand a biology article and had trouble thinking of a species to write about. I had originally planned to write about zebra mussels or a related species, but articles already existed for most of the bivalves that I was interested in. Since most "harmful" shellfish (those that affect agriculture and outcompete other species) are already mentioned in Wikipedia, I decided to write about a microbe with similarly detrimental effects. I browsed through a list of stub-class articles in the biology category, and clicked on a few species of bacteria. After looking into each possibility, I settled on Agrobacterium vitis.

My final article fits into Wikipedia well. An article on the Agrobacterium genus mentions several biovars, and articles already exist for two Agrobacterium species (A. tumefaciens and A. rhizogenes). While A. tumefaciens is the most important species due to its use in genetic engineering, A. vitis has a significant impact on viniculture and is therefore worth researching. As I searched for more information on A. vitis, I noticed that most of it was either located in isolated one-pagers (created by government/educational institutions) or in highly technical papers. Accessing and understanding this information was difficult, and I realized that a Wikipedia page on A. vitis would be useful for farmers or botanists trying to learn more about the cause of crown gall disease on grapevines.

The Wikipedia editors and community should accept this final article, as it meets all relevant standards. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, this article is nontrivial. Information about A. vitis, crown gall disease, and infection prevention is useful in agriculture and botany. I have produced an article that I believe is of good quality: it is well-organized, concise, and comprehensive. No relevant information has been intentionally excluded, and the debate on the taxonomy of A. vitis has been addressed in an impartial manner. To ensure that the article met Wikipedia's quality standards, I used sections of the E. coli and S. marcescens articles as models for organization and taxobox formatting. All sources are credible, and I have cited all statements in this article to the best of my ability. Finally, the article is written from a neutral point of view. Information has been represented accurately, with recent research identified as such. Ongoing debates are mentioned, but I have not conducted any original research. All information in this article is taken directly from reliable and verifiable sources.

Saebr1 (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)