User talk:Cjrodgers/sandbox

Peer Review Edit: Euglenid

Osmotrophic euglenids section - added a good amount of information into the first paragraph of this section. You explained why the origin of osmotrophic euglenids are unclear, and why that is.

-all of the grammar seems to be correct, and the tenses - i can't really see any bias or favoritism in any of the edits. it's clear that you're speaking the information purely from a fact-based standpoint, and none of the information makes me lean a certain type of way towards what you are saying, which is a good sign.

the information in the history and classifications section is good, it makes sense

i know the nutrition section talked about phagocytosis as their source of nutrition, maybe you can say something about like the metabolism process of it too? I know it's similar in some way to nutrition but it would be a cool section to add or look into adding at least

also, earlier it says that they were classified as animals and plants because they shared characteristics with both species, but in the reproduction section, theres a part that says "...which is one of the reasons why they could no longer be classified as animals." so maybe in the history and classifications section, instead of saying "thus they were classified as both animals and plants, as they share characteristics with both," since they can no longer be classified as animals, maybe instead you can say, in the that section, "The euglenoids were first defined by Otto Butscli in 1884 as the flagellate order Euglenida, as an animal. Botanists subsequently created the algal division Euglenophyta; thus they were classified as both animals and plants, sharing characteristics of both at one point in time." Something like that that makes it clear that they no longer are identified as animals, but at one point in time, or when they were first discovered, they were.

it's good though you guys made good edits

Sofiagians (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Sofia (sofiagians)

Peer Review Round 2

Overall good edits to the article.

I like the parts you added to the osmotrophic section, it just may be helpful to mention the term osmotrophic in the first paragraph when discussing the different euglena types.

For the reproduction section, i would split apart the first sentence. It feels like you're making alot of different points in one sentence, Also, the step by step walkthrough of reproduction is good. I would just make sure all of the terms are defined or linked out, things like cytostome and basal bodies may not be widely known.

I like how you add the point about it's difficult classification to the article, ties in with the other parts of the article.

Burn1113 (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review edits

all of the information you have is good and makes sense, but the beginning sentence of the reproduction section was a little confusing. it's just really wordy, so maybe just try to break it up into two sentences, or condense the information. but other than that it's good

Sofiagians (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)sofiagians

As it stands now, the current structure is 1. (opening paragraph) 2. Structure and locomotion 3. History and classfications 4. Classification and nutrition 5. Osmotrophic Euglenids 6. Reproduction

It seems redundant to me to have classifications twice, so I propose we remove the second occurrence, and make nutrition its own category, or a subcategory of classifications.

A new proposed structure: 1. (opening paragraph) 2. Structure and locomotion 3. History and classifications 3a. Nutrition 4. Reproduction 5. Osmotrophic euglenids

let me know what you think

Cjrodgers (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed I will make those changes BrittneyLambert (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

bibliography section should be removed and just be a references section, with all material in the article cited and linked to one of our references

Cjrodgers (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)