User:AstroJam4/sandbox

Article Evaluation Criterion: EAS 6122
Evaluating Content


 * 1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
 * 2) Is there anything that distracted you?
 * 3) Is any information out of date?
 * 4) Is anything missing that could be added?
 * 5) What else could be improved?
 * 6) Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon?
 * 7) Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics?

Evaluating Tone


 * 1) Is the article neutral?
 * 2) Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 3) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Evaluating Sources


 * 1) Check a few citations.
 * 2) Do the links work?
 * 3) Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * 4) Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * 5) Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Evaluating Figure


 * 1) Does the figure provide a scientifically accurate depiction of the biogeochemical cycle?
 * 2) Is the high quality (neat and high resolution), well-organized, with arrows connecting components of the cycle?
 * 3) Is the figure labeled accurately, with all unlabeled symbols defined in a legend and units provided for the size of reservoirs and fluxes?

Article Evaluation Criterion: EAS 6200
Evaluating Content
 * 1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
 * 2) Is there anything that distracted you?
 * 3) Is any information out of date?
 * 4) Is anything missing that could be added?
 * 5) What else could be improved?
 * 6) Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon?
 * 7) Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics?

Evaluating Tone
 * 1) Is the article neutral?
 * 2) Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 3) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Evaluating Sources
 * 1) Check a few citations.
 * 2) Do the links work?
 * 3) Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * 4) Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * 5) Where does the information come from?
 * 6) Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Evaluating Content

 * 1) The content provided under the Hydrogen Cycle Wikipedia page was extremely relevant to the biogeochemical cycle of Hydrogen.
 * 2) There was near to no distracting material in this article. The Hydrogen Cycle was detailed in a straightforward, fact-oriented manner.
 * 3) The information under this article does not seem to be out of date.
 * 4) There are no feedback loops or diagrams associated with the content in this article (this would be a healthy addition).
 * 5) Content provided in the concluding sentence of "Sources" under the "Abiotic cycles" subsection was confusing and up to interpretation given the previous sentence only detailing early photooxidation in the Hydrogen Cycle. More information is necessary or at least more substantive content must be provided to validate the claim that photooxidation may have been an "important process" in Archaean oceans.
 * 6) Scientific information is presented clearly, accurately, and with mild jargon. The only jargon worth noting is the non-linking of "thermodynamics" or the explanation there-in of metabolic efficiencies when detailing "Consumption" under the "Biotic cycles" subsection.
 * 7) The Hydrogen Cycle Wikipedia page contains links to relevant concepts throughout the article as well as an additional "See also" bulleted list at the end of the article just before the "References" section.

Evaluating Tone

 * 1) The article for the Hydrogen Cycle maintains a neutral tone.
 * 2) No claims are present in this Wikipedia article that seem to be meant to persuade or hold a position other than conveying facts.
 * 3) All viewpoints were succinct and neither over or underrepresented.

Evaluating Sources

 * 1) Checked existing citations (20) as of 2/5/2021.
 * 2) All hyperlinks work other than "Wächtershäuser G. "Origin of life in an iron–sulfur world". The Molecular Origins of Life. Cambridge University Press. pp. 206–218." which does not contain an active hyperlink.
 * 3) All sources contribute toward the claims provided on the Hydrogen Cycle.
 * 4) All facts are referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. In the case of the subsection "Implications for Astrobiology" there are numerous citations contributing towards grounding the assertion of Hydrogen Cycling on Enceladus.
 * 5) The information provided comes from peer-reviewed journals providing little to no bias from the perspective of research and facts laid-out.

Evaluating Figure

 * 1) There was no figure provided in this article.
 * 2) There was no figure provided in this article.
 * 3) There was no figure provided in this article.

Evaluating Content

 * 1) The content provided under the Nitrogen Cycle Wikipedia page was extremely relevant to the biogeochemical cycle of Nitrogen.
 * 2) This Wikipedia page had no (necessarily) distracting content.
 * 3) There is potentially outdated information given the mismatched citations for Gu, Baojing et al (2012-08-17 vs 2012-09-04).
 * 4) A subsection for "Terrestrial nitrogen cycle" would do well as a follow-up to the "Marine nitrogen cycle" subsection. Further, under "Nitrification" we could move most of the content provided in the second paragraph to the "Marine nitrogen cycle" for better cohesion of information.
 * 5) This is more of an opinion than anything but material solely related to human impacts on the nitrogen cycle might best be represented as separate Wikipedia pages linked to under a "See also" subsection.
 * 6) Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon?
 * 7) The article has a "See also" section and has linking throughout to allow for informed reading of the concepts discussed in the Nitrogen Cycle.

Evaluating Tone

 * 1) The article maintains a mostly neutral tone on facts surrounding the Nitrogen Cycle but expounds heavily upon the "Consequence of human modification of the nitrogen cycle" (maybe this could have been linked in a "See also" section?).
 * 2) No claims under this article appear to be heavily biased towards a non-factual position.
 * 3) The "Marine nitrogen cycle" and "Human influences on the nitrogen cycle" are well represented but, going in-line with "Marine nitrogen cycle", we may find this article improved by consolidating human impacts under a "Terrestrial nitrogen cycle" subsection and better representing land, plant, and animal impacts if warranted.

Evaluating Sources

 * 1) Checked citations within this article (61 containing duplicates at the time of this evaluation as of 2/5/2021) with additional details
 * 2) There are non-linked articles (references without easy to follow linkings)
 * 3) Moir, JWB (editor) (2011). Nitrogen Cycling in Bacteria: Molecular Analysis. Caister Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-904455-86-8.
 * 4) Smil, V (2000). Cycles of Life. Scientific American Library, New York.
 * 5) Willey, Joanne M. (2011). Prescott's Microbiology 8th Ed. New York, N.Y.: McGraw Hill. p. 705. ISBN 978-0-07-337526-7.
 * 6) Lalli, Parsons, Carol, Timothy (1997). Biological oceanography: An introduction. Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-7506-3384-0.
 * 7) Miller, Charles (2008). Biological Oceanography. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp. 60–62. ISBN 978-0-632-05536-4.
 * 8) Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22–25 September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany, R. W. Howarth and S. Bringezu, editors. 2009 Executive Summary, p. 3 Archived 2009-06-06 at the Wayback Machine
 * 9) There is a duplicate citation(s) of:
 * 10) Fowler, David; Coyle, Mhairi; Skiba, Ute; Sutton, Mark A.; Cape, J. Neil; Reis, Stefan; Sheppard, Lucy J.; Jenkins, Alan; Grizzetti, Bruna; Galloway, JN; Vitousek, P; Leach, A; Bouwman, AF; Butterbach-Bahl, K; Dentener, F; Stevenson, D; Amann, M; Voss, M (5 July 2013). "The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first century". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences.
 * 11) Gu, Baojing; Ge, Ying; Ren, Yuan; Xu, Bin; Luo, Weidong; Jiang, Hong; Gu, Binhe; Chang, Jie (2012-08-17). "Atmospheric Reactive Nitrogen in China: Sources, Recent Trends, and Damage Costs". Environmental Science & Technology.
 * 12) This duplication looks to be a duplication and variance based on dates cited?
 * 13) Miller, Charles (2008). Biological Oceanography. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp. 60–62. ISBN 978-0-632-05536-4.
 * 14) Almost all links "work". There are a numerous paywall restricted papers with a meager summaries/abstracts provided to external/non-academic audiences.
 * 15) Leveraged sources accurately and sufficiently assist in supporting the factual grounding of the Nitrogen Cycle.
 * 16) The references given are appropriate and reliable in the sense that they are peer-reviewed and contain numerous, diverse, and high-impact authors.
 * 17) The information comes from a wide array of journals and peer-reviewed publications.

Evaluating Figure

 * 1) All figures provide layers of scientific accuracy leading to an ensemble of completeness for an outsider's view in to the biogeochemical cycling of Nitrogen.
 * 2) All figures are high-quality, appropriately connecting different parts of the Nitrogen Cycle, and well-organized but there is a bit of ambiguity around Nitrogen Fixation through lightning strikes in Figure 3 (vertically ranked from 1 on the top down to 2, ..., n).
 * 3) Figure 1 detailing the Nitrogen Cycle is the most accurately labelled Figure with definitions and further details in a corresponding, attached note.

Evaluating Content

 * 1) The content provided under the Oxygen Cycle Wikipedia page was extremely relevant to the biogeochemical cycle of Oxygen.
 * 2) This article was too succinct to distract the reader.
 * 3) The content provided seems to be in date and relevant.
 * 4) We may find an improved Oxygen Cycle by including a "See also" page connecting to such pages as Marine biogeochemical cycles, etc.
 * 5) Overall the article does not need extensive improvements other than a few fixes in citations as mentioned below in "Evaluating Sources" bullet 4.
 * 6) Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon? All scientific information is presented clearly and accurately but there may have been to heavy of an emphasis on the chemistry involved (neglecting the complex biological mechanisms of the Earth System).
 * 7) This article links well to other Wikipedia pages for explaining specifics such as lithosphere and phytoplankton but as mentioned in "Evaluating Content" bullet 4 we may find improvement with the inclusion of a "See also" subsection containing topics or concepts where the Oxygen Cycle plays a role of significance.

Evaluating Tone

 * 1) The article maintains a neutral tone throughout.
 * 2) There appear to be no claims that deviated from a position of unbiased fact.
 * 3) This Wikipedia page does not seem to overrepresent or underrepresent any specific point of view on the topic of the Oxygen Cycle. This article is very succinct lacking embellishment.

Evaluating Sources

 * 1) Checked existing citations (15) as of 2/5/2021.
 * 2) All citations contain links to either fully readable or paywall restricted scientific papers.
 * 3) All sources support the factual introduction to the Oxygen Cycle laid out on this Wikipedia page.
 * 4) Almost all facts are referenced with appropriate, reliable references. Under the subsection "Reservoirs", oxygen makeup (as a percentage of the related sphere- biosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere) could be updated with a recent or stable reference. Another exception is found under "Capacities and fluxes" beginning with "Note that claims by several individuals and organizations..."- this requires a citation or at least a grouping of names linked to other Wikipedia pages (we back up claims with a source or indirection toward eventual sources that explain such claims).
 * 5) The information provided on the Oxygen Cycle comes from reliable references in the form of numerous, peer-reviewed articles channeled through credible journals or academic groups.

Evaluating Figure

 * 1) The Oxygen Cycle is detailed well in its figure (there are labelled processes and visible connections between atmosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere).
 * 2) The figure on the Oxygen Cycle page is concise, organized, and has directional arrows connecting the atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, or biosphere.
 * 3) All arrows, domains, and processes within the figure are labelled well. There is a subsection containing details about reservoirs as well as fluxes.

Evaluating Content
The scientific information appears to be presented clearly without much handwaving or jargon. For the most part if a term is confusing or atypical there is a link to its wikipedia page which should provide clarity to the reader.
 * 1) All material present within the article is relevant to the sulfur cycle. My only criticism is the inclusion of "Economic importance"- this may have been relegated to the "sulfur" page and any specifically meaningful information on the sulfur cycle could be engrossed within another section of the article- either terrestrial or marine cycling discussions.
 * 2) As insignificant as it may seem I was distracted by the formatting of the first section of the sulfur cycle where instead of "Steps of the sulfur cycle:" having its own line before its associated list, we find that string at the end of a paragraph followed by a list.
 * 3) No information seemed to be out of date.
 * 4) As mentioned in the sources section there could be a few more citations to cover claims throughout the article but overall the sulfur cycle is well put together.
 * 5) We could improve the sulfur cycle article by dividing the "evolution of the sulfur cycle" in to several subparts.
 * 6) Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon?
 * 1) Yes, the article contains both a "See Also" section as well as links throughout connecting to useful information related to the sulfur cycle.

Evaluating Tone

 * 1) The article maintains neutrality throughout.
 * 2) There do not appear to be any biased claims being made toward any particular position.
 * 3) Not necessarily a viewpoint, but the article could possibly expand upon usage of sulfur in fertilizers as this is only mentioned sparingly in the last couple of lines of the sulfur cycle article.

Evaluating Sources

 * 1) As of 9/17/2021 6 of 46 links either do not work or are incomplete.
 * 2) Leveraged sources support claims as they are cited (though some claims are made without appropriate citation).
 * 3) Most facts are referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference but there were claims such as: sulfur mostly existed as pyrite on the anoxic early Earth was stated without citation (and I'm willing to bet there was a lot of work done to prove this that warranted a citation).
 * 4) A majority of the information provided within the article comes from reputable journals such as Nature, American Journal of Science, Journal of Thermal Analysis, etc.
 * 5) The sources provided appear to be neutral in bias and aimed at conveying the science behind the claims presented.

Evaluating Content

 * 1) The material within the phosphorous cycle article maintains a concise aim to describe and illuminate the biogeochemical cycle of phosphorous.
 * 2) The formatting of this article was particularly distracting. For the most part we find a format of Elemental Pools->subparts, Cycling->[Terrestrial, Marine, etc]. In this article we have a break from the norm and have less division and compartmentalization with formatting.
 * 3) The information presented on the phosphorous cycle appears to be up to date.
 * 4) No material or information appears to be missing.
 * 5) As mentioned above, we could potentially create a terrestrial cycling and marine cycling section and reorganize our overall article to better flow for readability's sake.
 * 6) Scientific material is presented in a palatable manner and jargon is either completely avoided or described by links to the associated Wikipedia page.
 * 7) This article does a good job of maintaining a large "See also" section as well as providing Wikipedia page links throughout the article for clarity and further reading.

Evaluating Tone

 * 1) The article is largely neutral and focuses on the science behind the phosphorous cycle.
 * 2) No claims appear with inordinate bias.
 * 3) No viewpoints appear over or under represented.

Evaluating Sources

 * 1) As of 9/17/2021 8 of 30 links either do not work or do not exist.
 * 2) The sources used appropriately support the claims that they are tied to.
 * 3) Most facts are cited with a reliable source.
 * 4) The information comes from journals such as Plant and Soil, Plant Physiology, Mineralogical Magazine, and other reliable sources.
 * 5) The sources within this article appear neutral in content.

Evaluating Content

 * 1) All information within this Wikipedia article appears to be relevant to the carbon cycle.
 * 2) The most distracting element of the article was its length. As discussed below we could hopefully constrain the page length while still conveying sufficient information so as to not dissuade the reader from venturing deeper in to the topic of carbon cycling.
 * 3) There does not appear to be any out of date material in the carbon cycle article.
 * 4) Nothing appears to be missing in this article.
 * 5) One point of improvement might be compressing the content of the carbon cycle article. Further, removal of topics such as "Carbon in the core" and placement of said section within another Wikipedia page may help with article concision.
 * 6) This article attempts to avoid jargon and explains the science of the carbon cycle candidly. As the article touches on the pieces of the carbon cycle any new vocabulary or topic is typically linked to its related Wikipedia page (as long as it is a non-trivial piece of the discussion).
 * 7) The carbon cycle has a "See Also" section linking to related articles as well as numerous links throughout the body of the article touching on related topics allowing the reader to touch on the various subjects referenced throughout the article.

Evaluating Tone

 * 1) The article appears to maintain neutrality given the touchy subject that is carbon cycling connected to the greater realm of climate change.
 * 2) No claims seem overly biased.
 * 3) No viewpoints seem over or under represented. The carbon cycle appears to be a very well-fortified biogeochemical cycle Wikipedia article.

Evaluating Sources

 * 1) As of 9/17/2021 14 of 120 links either do not work or do not exist.
 * 2) Most links work- the majority of faulty sources are due to no linkage, not broken links.
 * 3) Sources leveraged within the carbon cycle support the claims of the article.
 * 4) The majority of facts are referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference.
 * 5) The information comes from journals such as Nature and Biogeochemical Cycles as well as NOAA and other reliable sources.
 * 6) The sources employed appear to be neutral.