User:Adiering3/sandbox

Evaluating content:

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
 * Seems like it
 * Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Most of the sections were very short; it seems like there could be more information in the Relevance for Global Climate Change section
 * Is any information out of date?
 * Not that I can tell
 * Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The sections could all be expanded more
 * What else could be improved?
 * More pictures- there is only one image and it is only describing the rock cycle not the H-cycle
 * Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon?
 * yes
 * Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics?
 * yes

Evaluating tone.

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Implications for astrobiology section might be biased towards certain origins of life theories because they are referencing studies that talk about hydrothermal reactions with H2 without sharing other OoL theories (I'm not an expert in this field but I think there are more ideas than just hydrothermal reactions)
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The astrobiology section overrepresents one origin of life theory. The relevance to global climate change seems very shallow and underrepresented considering the hydrogen cycle interacts with the carbon and nitrogen cycles both of which are critically important to climate change.

Evaluating sources.

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work?
 * yes
 * Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * yes
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * yes
 * Where does the information come from?
 * published and peer reviewed scientific literature and scientific websites
 * Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Yes they are neutral or at least biased towards the theories they are testing which is implied bias

Evaluating content:

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
 * Yes
 * Is there anything that distracted you?
 * No, it was very on topic and clear
 * Is any information out of date?
 * Not that I can tell
 * Is anything missing that could be added?
 * They could have referenced the biochemistry involved in the carbon cycle more. There is not a lot of explanation of photosynthesis but it is referenced a couple times. A brief summary would make it easier to understand the references later on
 * What else could be improved?
 * It is a pretty dense and long article, shortening some of the sections or breaking them up might be helpful
 * Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon?
 * yes mostly, some of sections use wiki-links instead of explaining some jargon
 * Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics?
 * yes

Evaluating tone.

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not really
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not that I can tell. Maybe a bit heavy on the inorganic/abiotic factors of the carbon cycle

Evaluating sources.

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work?
 * yes
 * Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * yes
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * yes
 * Where does the information come from?
 * Published and peer reviewed scientific literature and scientific websites
 * Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Yes they are neutral

Evaluating content:

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
 * Yes
 * Is there anything that distracted you?
 * No
 * Is any information out of date?
 * Not that I can tell
 * Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The summary section does not actually explain where/how mercury cycles in a broad general overview at all. there is a figure that makes it clear, but some text would be helpful
 * What else could be improved?
 * It feels like most of the article is not very in depth or approachable. It feels like someone should add more details to everything that is there already
 * Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon?
 * yes mostly, there is some jargon but it could be improved with some sentences explaining the ideas more
 * Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics?
 * yes

Evaluating tone.

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not really
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not that I can tell.

Evaluating sources.

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work?
 * yes
 * Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * yes
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * yes
 * Where does the information come from?
 * Published and peer reviewed scientific literature and scientific websites
 * Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Yes they are neutral