User talk:Willyip/sandbox
Bacterial Circadian Rhythms Willyip (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations from 35 different sources ranging from academic presses to peer-reviewed journals. Any apparent facts which are likely to be challenged such as the sentence, “before the mid-1980s. it was believed that only eukaryotes had circadian systems” is appropriately cited. The article however, fails to cover relevant and and supporting information for the general topic of bacterial circadian rhythms. The article seems to narrow in on particular types of bacteria (e.g. cyanobacteria) that exhibits circadian rhythm rather than focusing on the general aspects of circadian rhythm in the prokaryote kingdom as a whole. As a suggestion, I would either change the title of the Wikipedia article (so it is more specific) or change the overall contents of this page. This is because as of now, the article has too much unnecessary in-depth information, and contributes little understanding to the general topic of bacterial circadian rhythm. The article is written from a perspective that assumes the reader is an educated individual in the field of biology and has background knowledge of many of the terms used. Vocabulary such as protoplasm and promoter are not defined in the article and do not aid the audience. Therefore, the reader requires prior knowledge to understand the topic of bacterial circadian rhythm. In other words, the article’s audience is significantly reduced. I would also like to comment on the lack of figures to support certain claims such as how promoters are rhythmically regulated.
Critique of Bacterial Nanowires
Willyip (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The article on Bacterial nanowires is a poorly developed article. First and foremost, the article lacks content. The article features a section called Physiology, outlining the physical characteristics of bacterial nanowires found in various genera of bacteria such as the Geobacter and the shewanella[1]. The information in this section would presumably provide basic information to a new reader, but would provide no in-depth knowledge to a reader who is wanting to understand bacterial nanowire on a cellular level in understanding mechanistic processes. The article is suitably referenced with citations mainly from academic articles, and peer-reviewed papers; however, these sources (not all) date back to as early as 2005 which suggests the need to incorporate new academic discoveries into this article. Nonetheless, the article exhibits high notability. Secondly, the article features an empty section called History which seems absurd because like many scientific discoveries, bacterial nanowires was discovered by some person who can easily be noted instead of leaving this section of the article blank. Lastly, the article features a section called Implications and Potential Applications. This section provides little meaningful information pertaining to bacterial nanowires. One way this section can be improved is by relating the properties of bacterial nanowires to environmental applications and how these bacterial nanowires contribute to current applications such as microbial fuel cells as well as the generation of electricity. There is most definitely room for improvement in this section of the article.
References Willyip (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- ^ Gorby, Yuri A.; Yanina, Svetlana; McLean, Jeffrey S.; Rosso, Kevin M.; Moyles, Dianne; Dohnalkova, Alice; Beveridge, Terry J.; Chang, In Seop; Kim, Byung Hong; Kim, Kyung Shik; Culley, David E.; Reed, Samantha B.; Romine, Margaret F.; Saffarini, Daad A.; Hill, Eric A.; Shi, Liang; Elias, Dwayne A.; Kennedy, David W.; Pinchuk, Grigoriy; Watanabe, Kazuya; Ishii, Shun’ichi; Logan, Bruce; Nealson, Kenneth H.; Fredrickson, Jim K. (25 July 2006). "Electrically conductive bacterial nanowires produced by Shewanella oneidensis strain MR-1 and other microorganisms". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. pp. 11358–11363. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604517103.
Sophia's peer review
[edit]The placement of the edited content is appropriate. It is logical that the application of the topic, bacterial nanowires, would be presented after explaining it first. The preceding sections of the article focus on Geobacter and Shewanella genera and the newly added content provides further details on how these two examples can be applied. The section is organized so that it flows well and is easy to understand. There are three clear paragraphs that each explain a significant application with supporting evidence.
Moreover, I also agree with the modification of the subtitle of the section that was edited. Previously, the title (“implications and potential applications”) reflected the limited knowledge of applications available for bacterial nanowires. There were only two sentences with only one source provided. However, the new content has proved that there are significant applications in recent research, reflecting the new title, “application significance of bacterial nanowires”. The content is neutral and concise with supporting evidence from literature; there are no biases when explaining the applications. It is also relevant and related to the rest of the article as the new content explains the importance of the bacterial nanowires. An area that could be improved however, is the last paragraph. There is just a brief mention of how biofilms can be used for bioelectronics, but I was not convinced why this was significant.
The writing is concisely written and easy to follow. The paraphrasing is done very well, and the sentences flow nicely. There are adequate explanations following the significance in bioenergy, bioremediation and bioelectronics.
Furthermore, all statements are backed up by reputable sources; the four references that are used are from journal articles. There is a balanced use of all sources, and the content offers a wide range of applications to the topic.