User talk:Tanle95/sandbox

Some Resources: http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&u=ubcolumbia&id=GALE%7CA438950307&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon&authCount=1 http://www.bioconlabs.com/nitribactfacts.html http://genome.jgi.doe.gov/nitwi/nitwi.home.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricksavage (talk • contribs) 08:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Assignment - Victoria Panwala This article looks well put together, and has a lot of information. One section that I might suggest adding to would be the metabolism and growth section. Perhaps adding in the nitrite to nitrate reaction and its associated free energy change would be useful. In addition, it would be useful to add information on where this reaction occurs and what enzymes facilitate it, I found a good source here According to the aforementioned source these reactions take place on specialized intracytoplasmic membranes that are folded into vesicles or tubes. The sentence in the beginning of this section "Nitrobacter may reproduce by budding or binary fission" is already stated in the introduction, and thus can be removed so as not to be repetitive.

Another section that would be useful to add would be an evolutionary history section. Apparently the nitrification reaction capabilities of other species and genuses evolved independently of nitrobacter. A taxonomy section would be useful as well, see this source. Although you already have included its taxonomic scientific classification, it would be useful to input data about how closely Nitrobacteria is related to other bacteria, for example.

The section on ecology and distribution is organized well and has a lot of information. This source includes information on how organic carbon and nitrite affect nitrobacter communities, and it can be incorporated into this section or the metabolism section. However, this experiment seems to have been performed on only one nitrobacter community, and given the information that you shared about habitat specific plasmid DNA, one can assume that the results of this experiment can not be applied universally to all nitrobacter communities. Victoriapanwala (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review - Marco Brambilla

The introduction of the article is well put together and contains an interesting and concise description. However, I suggest correcting some of the grammar errors that detract from the perceived quality of information. Including the etymology of Nitrobacter is interesting, but I don't think it requires its own section. Perhaps including this information in the introduction as an opening sentence would be best. Specific information on the optimal growing conditions for Nitrobacter in the introduction seem out of place and might best included under the ecology section. In the introduction you could simply mention that 'Nitrobacter prefer warm environments with neutral pH' and place the more specific information below.

The morphology section I think is important to have, but compared to the other sections in the article information on it appears to be sparse. I would recommend adding more information to this section along with any visuals that you might be able to find (microscope images of the cells, etc).

Regarding references, I assume that in some cases sources are being cited at the end of each paragraph if all information is from the same source. The problem with this is that I have to 'assume' this, which is potentially dangerous. I believe it would be good practice to cite each sentence individually, even if they are all from the same source, in order to eliminate ambiguity-something you don't want to have in an encyclopedia. Marco Brambilla (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review - Karen Ballantyne

Peer Review Assignment – Karen Ballantyne

I like that you included a section on Etymology and the chemical equations in the Nitrite Oxidation Reaction section. I also think it’s great that you’ve included pictures. I think the last paragraph in the Introduction is too detailed and should be moved to a section in the main article. Overall, the coverage of the materials looks balanced and neutral. You have a good amount of sources and they look like they are reliable. However, there appears to be citations missing in the main section of the page. There are some grammatical corrections that need to be made in the Introduction: 2nd paragraph, last sentence – ‘show’ should be ‘shown’; last paragraph needs consistency – ‘a pH’ and ‘an pH’. Overall, I enjoyed the article and found it interesting. Kballantyne (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review - Zach Lirenman

Overall, the article flows nicely and covers everything one would expect with this kind of Wikipedia article. However, I think that more can be added to the morphology and metabolism sections if possible. Perhaps a little more discussion on the nitrification reaction would be nice (where the reaction takes place, etc). Otherwise, I liked your use of figures, and I enjoyed the short history section.

You guys mentioned that your genus “plays an essential role in aquaponics”. Perhaps you could add a little bit more on that, as it is a fairly intriguing topic. Moreover, maybe the phylogeny and etymology sections could be combined into one section.

Other than that, I found a few grammatical errors throughout the article, including some run on sentences, etc. For example, “Its primary ecological role is to oxidize nitrite to nitrate which is readily absorbed by plants, after Nitrosomonas bacteria first convert ammonia into nitrites and since all Nitrobacter are obligate aerobes, oxygen along with phosphorous tend to be the limiting factors preventing them from being able to efficiently fix nitrogen.” Next, I think that you might have too much information in the introduction that would be better suited for other parts of the article (CO2 exposure, optimal pH, and optimal temperature). Lastly, in your introduction, you mention that Nitrobacter are “non-motile”. In the very next line though, you guys say that Nitrobacter “may or may not be motile”.

All in all, I think the article is very good, but just requires a tweak here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachLirenman (talk • contribs) 05:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)