Talk:Extremophiles in biotechnology: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Mariarrt - "Posted peer review" |
Dixiang Yuan (talk | contribs) →Peer Review (Dixiang): new section |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Peer Review (from Maria): I believe you did a good job organizing your information and you covered a lot of the aspects of the topic. I don’t know if that would be relevant to your article, but I think explaining how extremophiles contributed to advances in the polymerase chain reaction technique could be interesting and make things clearer. Otherwise, the text is very straightforward and easy to understand. I would also make the language more neutral and formal. For instance, on the last section you claim “biotech and the industry want to push farther and find new ways to impact the scientific community”. While that might be true, if it’s not an evidence supported claim, I would rephrase it or remove it. If possible, also try to find more recent sources (I know for some topics that is very hard, so I wouldn’t worry about it too much) and refrain from using original research. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mariarrt|Mariarrt]] ([[User talk:Mariarrt#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mariarrt|contribs]]) 13:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Peer Review (from Maria): I believe you did a good job organizing your information and you covered a lot of the aspects of the topic. I don’t know if that would be relevant to your article, but I think explaining how extremophiles contributed to advances in the polymerase chain reaction technique could be interesting and make things clearer. Otherwise, the text is very straightforward and easy to understand. I would also make the language more neutral and formal. For instance, on the last section you claim “biotech and the industry want to push farther and find new ways to impact the scientific community”. While that might be true, if it’s not an evidence supported claim, I would rephrase it or remove it. If possible, also try to find more recent sources (I know for some topics that is very hard, so I wouldn’t worry about it too much) and refrain from using original research. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mariarrt|Mariarrt]] ([[User talk:Mariarrt#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mariarrt|contribs]]) 13:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Peer Review (Dixiang) == |
|||
This article introduces the brief information of Extremophiles clearly to give reader a basic understanding. All sections are in a great order. The sentence are simple and concise, which are easier for me to understand. There are some changes I suggest. For the sub section 1.1 - 1.5, making them as isolated sections may be better. For the second section, the title may be changed to “Classification” since this section mainly classifies different extremophiles. And, in the third section, you could introduce some specific extremophiles and talk about the significant influence of them in different science area. The most important thing to improve this article is having some pictures of the PNET. Some pictures could make readers much easier to have an image and understand the article better. For example, giving some pictures of 4 major types of extremophiles. |
|||
Revision as of 14:15, 1 March 2019
This sandbox is the main drafting and editing space where I will be working on the new Wikipedia article "Extremophiles in Biotechnology." I am working on making this page for my Advanced Writing class at Northeastern University. Any help, suggestions, advice and edits are welcome, but make sure to leave descriptions or comments so I can follow up with you. Thank you and welcome to the page.
Peer Review (from Maria): I believe you did a good job organizing your information and you covered a lot of the aspects of the topic. I don’t know if that would be relevant to your article, but I think explaining how extremophiles contributed to advances in the polymerase chain reaction technique could be interesting and make things clearer. Otherwise, the text is very straightforward and easy to understand. I would also make the language more neutral and formal. For instance, on the last section you claim “biotech and the industry want to push farther and find new ways to impact the scientific community”. While that might be true, if it’s not an evidence supported claim, I would rephrase it or remove it. If possible, also try to find more recent sources (I know for some topics that is very hard, so I wouldn’t worry about it too much) and refrain from using original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariarrt (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review (Dixiang)
This article introduces the brief information of Extremophiles clearly to give reader a basic understanding. All sections are in a great order. The sentence are simple and concise, which are easier for me to understand. There are some changes I suggest. For the sub section 1.1 - 1.5, making them as isolated sections may be better. For the second section, the title may be changed to “Classification” since this section mainly classifies different extremophiles. And, in the third section, you could introduce some specific extremophiles and talk about the significant influence of them in different science area. The most important thing to improve this article is having some pictures of the PNET. Some pictures could make readers much easier to have an image and understand the article better. For example, giving some pictures of 4 major types of extremophiles.