Talk:Crocosphaera watsonii

Algae Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Algae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the photosynthetic organisms commonly called algae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AlgaeWikipedia:WikiProject AlgaeTemplate:WikiProject AlgaeAlgae articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page represents a good start and a significant contribution to Wikipedia. However, there were a number of problems with the initial page:

     - Many citations were not correctly formatted
     - There were many errors in spelling and grammar. 
     - Some explanations are hard to follow: e.g.  heterocysts
     - Many links to relevant Wikipedia pages were missing

Nonetheless, the page page represents a great beginning. Perhaps the next step would be to put Crocosphaera watsonii in the context of other cyanobacteria. How is it phylogenetically related to other marine cyanobacteria? There is an opportunity to expand into other areas, such as the genomics of Crocosphaera watsonii. Curt99 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Assignment (Cherri Lau): This article contains well researched, concise information. The initial description paragraph is well written, although there are a few grammatical and punctuation problems. Note that when you move your article to the actual WikiPage that the "Heading 1" of Crocosphaera watsonii used here should be the "Title" and the subheadings should instead be formatted as "Heading 1". Additionally, note that the organism's genera and species should be italicised.

I have a few concerns regarding references and the number of sources material is pulled from. Diel Rhythm and Iron Salvage sections use only one source. Similarly, the Phosphorous Limitation section relies primarily on one source. Try to use multiple sources for information to get a more rounded perspective on subject areas. Remember to link your paragraphs to Wikipedia articles to connect your article to wider sources. There are some errors highlighted by Wikipedia in yoru references regarding PMC numbers. Cherri lau (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arsh Khangura: The article is presented with high quality, neutral information and in general I think it is very well written, Your lead gives a great overview of your organism, and you don't unnecessarily repeat the information in your other sections. Overall I like the structure and flow of each of your sections except the very first one on Diel Rhythm, some of sentences seem like fragments and as I was reading I feel like this section was the only one that didn't really flow as well as the other ones, It was almost a bit clunky specifically right here "Diazotrophic cyanobacteria have to adapt mechanisms to ensure that oxygen doesn’t interfere with the enzyme complex responsible for Nitrogen fixing, since most of these enzymes are sensitive to oxygen[5] . Oxygen is especially toxic to nitrogenase. Nitrogen fixers that lack photosystem II use heterocyst that allows concurrent nitrogen fixation and photosynthesis[5]." These points are related to one another but the way you have it here when I read it almost seems like 3 completely different things. Your other sections flow really well and I think you can definitely touch this one up a bit. Next like Cherri the major thing I noticed is all your sections either rely completely on one source or draw primarily from only one, I understand when you find a high quality source it is tempting to just draw from it, but you don't necessarily have to add new content from new sources, just incorporate more sources that articulate what you already have here to increase the quality as it would have multiple sources and perspectives that support the content you have written. The last thing I would say is the title seems a bit much, I don't know if you plan on changing it, but seems more suitable for a formal research paper rather than a Wikipedia Article. Again overall great job! These issues shouldn't be too hard for you to resolve, I think you've done a great job with this page and look forward to seeing the final product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhangura07 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Le: The page is certainly well-written with much attention to detail. The content within each section is well-elaborated and has great flow from one idea to another. I also looked through most of your citations and I did not see any plagiarism (some edits are recommended though). General recommendations: (1) I noticed that you have several "UBC Library" citations - I think that you can provide a bit more information regarding the author, publication, journal, etc. (2) "Phosphate is required for photosynthesis and is an integral part of its machinery. By looking at Crocosphaera watsonii’s response to being phosphorous limited, we can understand how it works better" - take out the "we"! It's confusing. (3) Species name should be italicized.(4) This might not be feasible, but it would greatly benefit the page if you can incorporate some visual in complement with the written information.Tanle95 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Savage: I think the chosen topic is interesting and relevant, good choice. The body of the article demonstrates a good understanding of the topic, and the selection of references is thorough and diverse. Some suggestions I have for improving the article are as follows: -The general flow of each section can be improved. Spruce up the grammar, syntax, and sentence structure a bit. Also, the order in which information is presented in a section can sometimes be confusing. Make sure each paragraph presents information in a logical sequence. -Another issue I noticed is that some sections tend to rely entirely on one source. Be careful when you're writing these sections that they don't become simple reiterations of the information presented in the source material, because this can be construed as plagiarism. -In terms of the overall article, I think it would help with reader comprehension if a section was included near the beginning that described the nitrogen-fixation reaction and highlighted its importance to nutrient cycling in the ocean. Remember that this article is written for the uninformed public, so it is helpful to include background information. The same goes with the subject of the nitrogenase enzyme. This is arguably the most prominent feature of this species so it would be nice to see a better description of what it does. Nitrogenase is first introduced in the context of its intolerance to oxygen, there should be something before this that explains that nitrogenase is an enzyme used by C. watsonii to fix nitrogen. -Finally, this article focuses entirely on the scientifically relevant ecological and physiological features of this species. I agree that, since this is a research project, these topics should form the majority of the article; but I think it would be better balanced if you expanded a little bit on the basic background information presented in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricksavage (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]