User:Green desert scrub/sandbox

Article Evaluations Spring 2020

Phosphorus cycle

Information is presented using generally simple sentence structure and very clearly labels distinct processes when discussing multiple within the same sentence. For the most part jargon is absent. The article does contain links to other Wikipedia pages. However, there are some processes mentioned that were not linked to a Wikipedia page, but would be useful to have more information on. The aquatic phosphorus cycle figure could be improved visually as it is black and white and a bit grainy, as well as informationally, as it doesn’t contain any numerical values for fluxes. I found that all content was relevant but could use reorganization. For example, eutrophication is discussed in three separate sections and seems to repeat information.

For the most part the tone of the article is unbiased and informative. However, in the Human influences section some bias is present. The author describes human us of fertilizers as “careless” with an effect that “devastates” ecosystems. These word choices have strong negative connotations and should be changed to something more neutral.

Citation links work and correctly support the facts they are used as a reference for. Citation sources are generally reliable articles and seem unbiased, although some are outdated. They also tend to be overviews or summaries of many other works and include many references. Most claims in the article are referenced, but a few are missing citations.

Hydrogen cycle

All information presented is relevant to the hydrogen cycle, and was presented in a simple, easy to understand manner. However, information was fairly sparse. There were no figures to visually display the cycle, which would be very useful to concisely communicate. Additionally, the explanations for both cycles, abiotic in particular, clearly described sources and sinks but did not thoroughly explain how hydrogen moved between these locations or what the reservoirs are. This made it difficult to understand exactly how the hydrogen cycle flows. Many links to other relevant Wikipedia pages are present.

The tone of the article is neutral and informative. No sections or statements seemed biased. In terms of underrepresented viewpoints, there was only one sentence on anthropogenic involvement with the cycle, and I suspect that humans have a more noteworthy role.

Citation links were active and relevant to the claims they supported. Again, references were mainly neutral, trustworthy articles that tended to be reviews of many other works. Only a one or two of the citation sources were notably out-of-date. All facts in the article have relevant citations.

Oxygen cycle

All information is clearly labeled and relevant to the oxygen cycle. I found the presented tables to be a concise and effective method of communicating that information, and seeing the chemical reactions made the flux processes very clear. The anthropogenic influence on the oxygen cycle wasn’t discussed outside of an entry in the flux table and I believe is significant enough to warrant a sentence in the main body. Generally, this article was direct and overviewed main topics. The cycle figure contained processes that were not mentioned in the article. The article would be improved by having at least some information on everything in the figure. There are many imbedded Wikipedia links, specifically in the lead paragraph.

The tone is neutral, informative and seems to evenly represent the main aspects of the oxygen cycle. There were no notably biased claims.

Citation links work and support the claims for which they are being cited. Similar to the other reviewed articles, citation sources were primarily unbiased articles that compiled information from many references and summarized. A few of the citation sources were out-of-date. Many claims in the article are cited, but there are 3-4 that are not. The figure for the oxygen cycle is scientifically accurate in terms of reservoirs and flux processes. The figure is well-organized, major fluxes/reservoirs are clearly labeled, and very visually appealing. Flux values are present but reservoir sizes are not. Units are defined in the title and the figure description. The figure description also contains a linked Wikipedia page and multiple citations.

Lithium Cycle

Biogeochemical lithium cycle: lithium sinks are described in concentrations (ppm) and displayed as boxes. Fluxes are shown as arrows and are in units of moles per year. Continental rocks containing lithium are dissolved, transferring lithium to rivers or secondary minerals. Dissolved lithium in run-off travels to the ocean. Fluid release from hydrothermal vents contributes to oceanic lithium reserves while lithium is removed from the ocean by secondary mineral formation.

The lithium cycle (Li) is the biogeochemical cycle of lithium through the lithosphere and hydrosphere.

Sinks and Fluxes

Lithium is widely distributed in the lithosphere and mantle, as it is a trace element in silicate rocks. Lithium concentrations are highest in the upper continental and oceanic crusts. Chemical weathering at Earth’s surface dissolves primary mineral lithium and releases it to rivers and ground waters. Lithium can be removed from solution by formation of secondary minerals like clays, oxides, or zeolites.

Rivers eventually feed into the ocean, creating a flux from run-off that comprises ~50% of lithium input into the ocean. The remainder of lithium input into the ocean comes from hydrothermal venting at mid-ocean ridges, where lithium is released from the mantle. Oceanic lithium exists in significant concentrations in seawater and the altered oceanic crust. Like the process occurring in rivers, secondary clay formation removes dissolved lithium from sea water, creating a lithium flux to the altered oceanic crust.

Geochemical Tracer

Lithium isotopes have potential as viable geochemical tracers for processes such as silicate rock weathering and crust/mantle recycling due to significant fractionation.

Article Evaluations Fall 2021

Silica cycle

Evaluating Content:

All sections of the article are relevant and informative. There is some jargon throughout, making the article more in depth than a simple and clear overview of the silica cycle. However, many terms are wikilinked, which makes this article easier to understand. Both information and references are generally up-to-date. Information is most clearly presented through the use of graphics; however, the biogeochemical cycles diagram is too small to be readable.

Evaluating tone:

The tone of this article is neutral and informative throughout, even when discussing anthropogenic influences and climate change, which are frequently topics presented with bias. Equal discussion is given to terrestrial and marine silica cycling, and the silica cycles' importance to climate change is properly represented.

Evaluating Sources:

Citation links were active and supported the facts for which they were used as a reference. Generally, sources were very up-to-date with only a few from the 1990s/early 2000s. Most were also reviews or summaries, but one notable source this article mentioned was a specific finding from a group of scientists in 2019, which does not follow the typical review source preferred by Wikipedia.

Sulfur cycle

Evaluating Content:

All information presented is relevant to the sulfur cycle, and multiple sections contained lists to present information in a simple manner. Other sections are successfully organized into relatively small paragraphs, making the large amount of information presented easier to digest. Again, the use of graphics and diagrams was helpful, but the biogeochemical cycles diagram is too small to be readable. Additionally, the figure describing the sulfur cycle in general did not have numerical values for sink or flux sizes. Addition of numerical values would make this diagram more informative. This article does contain many wikilinks to other pages.

Evaluating tone:

Tone remains neutral and informative throughout the article and no notably biased claims were made, even when discussing human impacts and pollution. Discussing the economic importance of sulfur is relevant, but combining this discussion with sulfur's role as a pollutant seems disorganized as this point is also brought up in the next section, human impact. To prevent overrepresentation of sulfur as a pollutant, this should be discussed in only one section.

Evaluating Sources:

Citation links work and were relevant to the claims they supported. Sources were neutral. However, multiple sources were fairly old, and could likely be updated. Additionally, many claims in this article were made without a reference.

Selenium cycle

Evaluating Content:

All information in the article is relevant to the selenium cycle, and is presented clearly. However, this article was very short and should be expanded. The selenium pathways and transformations graphic was clear, accurate, and visually pleasing. Numerical values for fluxes and sinks could be added to make this graphic even more informative. The written sections were in short, easy to understand paragraphs. However, the information presented in the diagram was not properly discussed in the main body. So, sections describing selenium pathways and transformations should be added. This article is also missing a discussion on anthropogenic influences on the selenium cycle. The article has wikilinks connecting terms to other pages. This article has very few sources and only one is recent. The others can likely be updates, especially the source from 1964.

Evaluating tone:

The tone of this article is neutral and informative without biased claims. Proper attention was given to mobilization and immobilization processes, but discussion of selenium species was lacking.

Evaluating Sources:

Citation links work and were relevant to the claims they supported. However, multiple facts are not supported by a reference. References are review articles from reliable sources, but most are fairly old.