User talk:Malhar97/sandbox

Mixotroph Critique

There are parts of the article that are inconsistent with one another. The lead paragraph states, "If a trophic mode is obligate, then it is always necessary" but in the Types of Mixotrophy section, the wording can give a reader the impression that the word obligate means that that mode of tropism is sufficient not necessary. Similar language should be used through the article to avoid any confusion.

There is a sentence that is very similar to text from the cited source. From the wikipedia article: "A:Heterotrophy (phagotrophy) is the norm, and phototrophy is only used when prey concentrations are limiting." From the source: "Group A includes protists whose primary mode of nutrition is heterotrophy and where phototrophy is employed only when prey concentrations limit heterotrophic growth" This sentence could be edited in the following way: A: The organism mainly is heterotrophic but when faced with a shortage of prey it obtains its energy from sunlight.

The Article's sections require some restructuring. It would be more logical for the Examples section to follow the Plants Section as some of the examples include plants. In addition, the Examples section is very vague. There is a list of examples but is not clear of what specific type of mixotrophy they utilize. Further elaboration is needed under the examples relating back to article and how each example organisms functions as a mixotroph. For more clarity, examples should be further divided under seperate categories, for example: Plants, Animals, Bacteria.

Malhar97 (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Reflection

This activity helped me to think more critically of how other people might perceive a particular section of text and how important it is so use very clear and consistent language. It was challenging to critique the content itself and it required significant research to see what can be added or what is false. I think I am better equipped to think critically while reading wikipedia articles for my own use. Malhar97 (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2: Choosing the article

I have chosen Betaproteobacteria as it has been rated as Start Class and High Importance by Wikiproject Microbiology. The article is of notability as I was able to identify many high quality pieces of academic literature about the topic. The article is quite sparse in content especially under the metabolism heading. The article mentions the how diverse betaproteobacteria are metabolically, however only two examples are included. The examples are of phototrophic Rhodocylus and the nitrifying Nitrosomonadales. From looking for literature there are many more examples of betaproteobacteria utilizing other forms of metabolism. As part of my edit I will add to the metabolism section and include more examples of the metabolic modes. I will also attempt to improve the organization of the section by including subheadings for the Metabolism section.

From the abundance of literature it is clear that the metabolic pathways betaproteobacteria use are very diverse. The section should not only add context to that fact but also discuss more in-depth the links between catabolism and anabolism in each mode of metabolism which is something the article currently fails to do.

The first piece of content I will add will be about a new bacteria that researchers were able to isolate and show that it was able to assimilate succinate and contribute largely to denitrification in the soil. Another source I will use includes a journal article about the vast diversity of betaproteobacteria found in root nodules. There are many other papers identifying betaproteobacteria capable of methyltotrophy, authotropy using hydrogen, oxygen or calcium carbonate as an electron acceptor. I have not decided exactly which 3 sources I will use but I will use examples that are unique from another to show the diversity of metabolism as well as explain more about each type of metabolism.

Malhar97 (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Malhar97's Peer Review

After reading the original Wikipedia article, I suggest putting this "Metabolism" section after the "Phylogeny" section since in the lead section, the introduction about the phylum and types of betaproteobacteria comes first. The edit can be arranged in a more ordered way as denitrifiers are mentioned in the third paragraph, the last paragraph which is also talking about denitrification can be put in the same paragraph instead of separating them apart.

The edited content shows different energy and electron sources that can be used for catabolism, as well as carbon sources that can be used for anabolism. These contents fit the "Metabolism" section and indicate that betaproteobacteria has various metabolic strategies. There is nothing convincing, unnecessary, or off-topic. However, the sentence that is similar to a definition of denitrifiers can be paraphrased so that it can be clear that betaproteobacteria can carry out denitrification, not one of the denitrifiers can be betaproteobacteria. Also, the fourth paragraph mentions heterotrophy, but there is no more explanation about heterotrophic metabolic ways. Besides, some deeper explanation can be added to help readers understand the content, for example, what is the significance of the formation of nodules.

The work is concisely written, well paraphrased, and neutral, but the flow of idea is not very smooth since the third and last paragraphs are basically talking about catabolism, while the fourth paragraph mixes catabolism and anabolism together. There's one sentence has run-on: …organic compounds and inorganic electron donors and acceptors are used…, as the first "and" might cause confusion.

Statements in the edit can be derived from the journal articles listed in the reference, and the edit is balanced. There is a minor point that the experiment in the last reference used CaCO3 as the carbon source for all strains, and mentioning this strengthens the autotrophy of betaproteobacteria.

Charlene yjy (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)