Draft talk:Sulfurimonas
peer review
[edit]I like how you broke down the article, however having the different types of possible metabolisms in with the different species confuses it. I feel that they would be better placed in their own section. →BenjaminLowin (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Overall, I felt your content is great, and Sulferimonas is ecologically and genetically very interesting group. Some comments :
- Check your style especially for italic, with and without spaces between numbers and units.
- Since Sulfermanas is a genus, I feel little awkward to see “Sulferinomas is ~ “, when referring to the members of them. (I feel its fine when want to refer to the group itself.) I would recommend saying “members of Sulferimonas are ~”. (Maybe just me ...?)
- For species, I feel its safer to say four species has been “described”, since there should be large diversity that has been observed but not described.
- Sentence with “Sulfurimonas autotrophica are found to have Strain OK10T (= DSM 16294 = ATCC BAA-671 = JCM 11897)” <- what does this mean? (Every isolate has strain names.)
- “Through phylogenetic analysis, those bacterial mats have been found to be made of Sulfurimonas (Epsilonproteobacteria, Campylobacterales, and Helicobacteraceae)” <- What does this trying to say? Along with other members of Epsilonproteobacteria?
- I also felt that metabolism part should be a distinct section.
CrescentShapedAlgae (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]- The lead is great, it gives a basic overview of the article. The weight and length of each section is about the same. However, more details on nitrogen metabolism would be better.
- The order of the sections are organized in a sensible way.
- Content has a neutral point of view.
- Sources are reliable, most of them are from journal articles.
Leonchan415 (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hi guys! Good start so far. I like how you were able to find and present information on each of the four species. I noticed that the section on “Sulfurimonas denitrificans” was longer and had its own subsections. Is it because this species is better documented or has more significance? Perhaps you could address this. For your section on “Interaction with other organisms”, do the different species differ in their interactions? Other than this, great job on everything else. The lead section provided a good overview and is easy to understand; the sections are well-organized in a sensible manner; and the information was neutral and originated from reliable sources.