User talk:Rickyx11/sandbox
"Anaerobic respiration" article critique
[edit]Looking through the references, all sources seem to be credible as they belong to research articles, textbooks, or reliable websites. At first I was slightly confused as to why only fermentation was described in detail when there are many other types of anaerobic respiration; though after viewing the talk page I realize there is a big discussion on whether fermentation and anaerobic respiration should be merged, therefore clarity should be given as part of the article. The article is neutral. There are no claims or opinionated statements; everything is neutral and factual. Also, all information in this article is relevant to the article topic. The reduction potentials of manganese, cobalt, and uranium reduction is missing from the table under "Examples of respiration." Checking through half the citations confirms that there is no close paraphrasing nor is there any plagiarism involved. All citation links also lead to the correct source but some articles or textbooks are not free and require purchasing the source or providing permission to view the source. Specifically citation number six. Viewpoints in this article are well balanced and covers the necessary topics.
Rickyx11 ~ ~ ~ ~
Vengeanceknight's Peer Review
[edit]Rickyx11’s edit on the introductory section of the Wetland methane emission wikipage is a helpful edit that enriches the content of the page. Compared to the original introduction, the edited version features more reliable data that reinforces the claims made, significantly increasing the authenticity of the introduction. For example, the addition of the specific amount of annual wetlands methane emission greatly aids to illustrate the fact that wetlands are the “wetlands are the biggest contributing factor of atmospheric methane in the world”. Another notable edit made by Rickyx11 is the explanation of the fact that methane production may fluctuate. This edit is very significant, since it changes the somewhat assertive tone of the original introductory section to a more neutral one by recognizing the fact that although wetlands are the top methane producing biome, they do not always produce methane in the same quantity due to the fact that the output relies heavily on the availability of oxygen. There are also two problems, one minor and one major, with this edit. The minor one is a grammatical issue, a comma splice to be specific. In the first paragraph of the edited version, the two main clauses “contributing… atmospheric methane in the world” and “wetlands remain… to climate change” are separated only by a comma. The editor should consider punctuating appropriately by either joining the two main clauses together, or separate them completely. The major problem is that although all three researches cited in the edited version are all extremely reliable and felicitously used, they appear to be quite out-dated, with two published in 2001, and one in 1998. It is very likely that during the past sixteen years newer investigations on wetland methane emission have been conducted, which can provide more up-to-date data and improved theory on the subject matter. Vengeanceknight (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Peer review edits
[edit]I have taken Vengeanceknight's suggestions for improvement and corrected the grammatical error. I've also gone through various other articles and replaced two of them with more recent articles although the information in the articles seem to be consistent through the years. There are also not that many recently published articles on wetland methane emissions.
Ricky Poon Rickyx11 (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)