User:Marioux/sandbox

Potential Article Edits (Article: Red Algae)

Red Algae Potential Edits

• Reformat introduction to have logical flow (is currently a disorganized array of facts)
  • Morphology/Classification
  • Evolution
  • Origin
  • History (fossil record?)
  • Habitat
    • Add more description
    • How the habitat influences morphology
• Reformat the the section order
  • Taxonomy
  • Species/morphology
    • Add more description to different species
  • Genomics
    • Add data to genomic section
    • Major findings
    • Importance
  • Reproduction
  • Commercial Usage:
    • Agar Production
    • Human consumption
• Add more to chemistry section, currently is not relevant
• Review references for legitimacy

Suggested additions to article:

1. In Morphology Section: The molecular structure of red algae is a distinguishing factor between the species and others in the Archaeplastida supergroup. Red algae cells do not contain centrioles or flagellated cells, rather they have specialized microtubules. Reference: Evert, Ray F.; Eichhorn, Susan E. (2013). Biology of Plants. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company Publishers.

2. In Human consumption section: Rhodophyta is one of the top seaweed species produced in United States, contributing an estimated 1.5 billion dollars to a 10 billion dollar industry.

Reference: García-Jiménez, Pilar; Robaina, Rafael R. (2015-02-23). "On reproduction in red algae: further research needed at the molecular level". Frontiers in Plant Science. 6. doi:10.3389/fpls.2015.00093. ISSN 1664-462X. PMC PMC4337235

Peer Review

Intro: The intro begins to give a lot of very specific details without good explanations. There is a lot of definitions and doesn't read very easily. It's good material but I think the intro should be higher level and not repeat what is to follow.

Habitat: Good material but I think it should be broken up into more specific paragraphs. It seems like a bunch of pieces that are part of a bigger idea strung together into one paragraph.

Fossil Record: The part about the reefs doesn't really relate to fossils

Taxonomy: The first citation should be stated as factual and not talking about the authors specifically.

Relationship to Chromalveolata chloroplasts: this should be in history

Morphology, chemistry, and pit connections are all similar ideas with their current state. I like the ideas you had about the new proposed sections. In addition, the Pit connections are not well explained what they are and why they're important, there could be more of an intro about them.

Reproduction: content seems good but needs to be restructured into paragraphs.

Overall it seems that the suggestions you had will be very important in making this article better. It really reads like an "array of facts", but I think with some simple editing it could pull it together. I like the idea of reviewing the sources for legitimacy.

Jlashton (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments

I agree with Jlashton that Meredith and I should focus on organizing the information in such a way that the article doesn't seem to be a slew of facts, one after another. Looking back at the Fossil Record section in particular, I think Meredith and I should focus on building/elaborating on the first two paragraphs that are already that. Both of those paragraphs address the current records of red algae fossils.

Peer Review 2 (Epereira)

Intro: I would just make sure that once the other sections are written, then use those to formulate a solid intro that spans over all of the topics covered.

The section order proposed changes look good to me, just make sure sections are relatively parallel in size (not too much content, not too little content).

I definitely agree that the morphology section and human production sections are the weakest at the moment, and that is where new content should be focused for this assignment.

Overall these look like solid changes, and I agree with the comments of Jlashton. Just double check your sources are peer-reviewed, as of course you know, before this goes live.

Peer Review Comments

Thank you, Jlashton, for your insightful comments. I agree that the current article is just an array of facts. We will definitely focus on connecting the sections. We will expand on the pit connections as well. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. It was something I had no considered. Marioux (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Evaluation

Botany

• All references appear to be primary sources.
• Not all source links work.
• Mostly unbiased references.
• Neutral tone. No mention of any potential biases.
• Schools of thought/theories from different scientists throughout history of the field are presented without bias.
• Slightly disorganized sections. There is no obvious "flow" or logical order of the sections. There is a lot of "jumping around" in subject matter between sections. Might have better flow by starting with the history of botany, followed by sections on the different disciplines in the field, current research, and then implications of this research/importance of the field.
• The discussion in the talk section is primarily focused on the importance of representing the many different specialties of the field.

Cyanobacteria

• All primary sources as references.
• Most source links work.
• It appears most sources are unbiased, but at least one I came across had a biased tone. While the information it presented was factual, it also was written in a more personal, rather than neutral tone.
• Seems strange to have one large paragraph taken directly from a source rather than paraphrased (it is appropriately cited, however).
• Talk page discussion focuses mainly on including the history of the bacteria. Also, there are a few instances where some contributors ask to define scientific jargon.
• Talk discussion also focuses on controversial topics- specifically, identifying what is factual vs. opinion-based.

Pinophyta

• Not all sources are primary, but are reliable.
• Most links work.
• Sources unbiased.
• Article has neutral tone.
• There seems to be a lack of information in the "importance" sections.
• There is no logical order to the sections.
• Some sections- such as "Cultivation" have very little information.
• Most of the talk discussion is to contest and verify facts. There seems to be differing information in the references. Also, the talk discussion serves to provide/share more potential sources for this article.