User:Appletree4life/Chemocline/Marythemuffinlady Peer Review

Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Appletree4life

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Appletree4life/Chemocline

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Chemocline

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: The lead/first sentence explains the topic of article addition clearly.

Content:

- "In this study they showed that the sulfide required by the sulfide oxidizing phototrophs in the chemocline is supplied by the sulfide reducing organisms found in the hypolimnion and the sediment.": I would suggest expanding on this idea, why is this important to know in regards to a chemocline/to the example being discussed? Does this affect the structure/formation of a chemocline? Etc.

- "Here the distribution of ciliates was determined to be highest right in and above the chemocline that is defined by the purple and green sulfur bacteria that inhabit it. The sulphur oxidizing bacteria in the chemocline provides the nutrition that allows the ciliates to survive. The ciliates providing nutrition up the trophic levels.": I would suggest an addition here to summarize why this example is important. Does it show a different type of chemocline? Or does the chemocline affect the productivity of the system due to these particular aspects it exhibits? I think the information is interesting and would be worth keeping if you can create a sentence to tie the idea back into the topic being discussed.

- "These layers have varying microbial communities with varying bacterial metabolic activities that allows for the varying products to be used across the different layers in the aquifer overall supporting the diversity of the microbial communities within it.": I would suggest an edit/addition here to explain the role of the chemocline in regards this statement. Why does/does this affect the chemocline? Does the chemocline effect these metabolic activities? How? If not, may not be necessary to add this whole example. You can always use general information from articles to state aspects of a chemocline without explaining the study conducted in the article.

- "The sulfur oxidizing bacteria in the chemocline facilitates the transfer of the sulfide into the aerobic mixolimnion supporting its community.": I would suggest adding a sentence here to summarize why this matters, such as stating... "Thus highlighting the importance of a chemocline in the overall productivity or health of a lake ecosystem...."

- "Overall, bodies of water that are chemically stratified will allow for the creation of various habitats within the different layers indicating the biological significance of chemoclines along with the microbial communities that make them up.": I love this sentence! I would suggest trying to elaborate more like this in the body of your draft. For example, after you talk about a study/its aspects then add a sentence stating simply how it changed the habitat, created habitat, changed productivity, etc.

Tone/Balance: All content seems to be stated in an unbiased manner.

Sources/References: You are needing at least 6 more sources to have enough information for Wiki to accept the claims in your draft. Once you find more sources it may become easier for you to grasp what is important enough to state in the draft. Also, I would be sure to cite all sentences that refer to information from your articles, even if you cited the sentence before or after. The only sentences I personally didn't cite are ones where I learned the info in previous classes and did not need to look up information again, which might be a good rule to go by.

- Need to add sources into bibliography.

Organization:

- There are some missing commas at the beginning of sentences, specifically after you state an example/article it should be followed by a comma before stating information about it.

- "The ciliates providing nutrition up the trophic levels.": I would suggest to rewrite this sentence, it doesn't seem to flow well & doesn't clearly show the purpose for the sentence.

- "These layers have varying microbial communities with varying bacterial metabolic activities that allows for the varying products to be used across the different layers in the aquifer overall supporting the diversity of the microbial communities within it.": This sentence is too long, may need to split into two sentences or edit it to be more clear.