User:Celbon/sandbox

= Chlorine Cycle = The chorine cycle (Cl) summarizes the biogeochemical cycling of chlorine through the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and lithosphere. Chlorine is most commonly found as chloride ions, or a number of chlorinated organic forms. Over 5,000 biologically-produced chlorinated organics have been identified.

Chlorine, along with phosphorous, is the sixth most common element in organic matter. Chlorine plays essential roles in many biological processes, including numerous roles in the human body. It also acts as an essential co-factor in enzymes catalyzing plant photosynthesis.

Atmospheric chlorine
Chlorine plays a large role in atmospheric cycling and climate, including, but not limited to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Water systems
Oceans are the largest source of chlorine in the Earth's hydrosphere. In the hydrosphere, chlorine exists primarily as chloride due to the high solubility the Cl- ion.

Terrestrial chlorine
The largest reservoir of chlorine resides in the lithosphere, where % of global chlorine is found in Earth's mantle. Volcanic eruptions will sporadically release high levels of chlorine as HCl, but the majority of this chlorine comes from seawater sources mixing with the mantle.

Organically bound chlorine is as abundant as chloride ions in terrestrial soil systems, or the pedosphere. Discovery of multiple Cl-mediating genes in microorganisms and plants indicate that numerous biotic processes use chloride and produce organic chlorinated compounds, as well as many abiotic processes. These chlorinated compounds can then be volatilized or leached out of soils, which makes the overall soil environment a global sink of chlorine. Multiple anaerobic prokaryotes have been found to contain genes and show activity for chlorinated organic volatilization.

Anthropogenic chlorinated compounds
The depleting effects of CFCs on ozone has been studied extensively since the 1980s.

Chlorine-36 is the radioactive isotope produced in many nuclear facilities as byproduct waste.

=
Evaluating content. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved? Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon? Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics? ===== The article had some issues with writing in the correct tense throughout a sentence, which was slightly confusing when modern systems were discussed. The information is presented fairly clearly, with appropriate hyperlinks to references that may not be common knowledge. This page may have slightly more jargon than other, more edited pages, such as the Nitrogen cycle. When discussing anthropogenic effects on the iron cycle, the authors focused primarily on iron dust, but did not mention acid-mind drainage and its impacts on environments. Additionally, acid-mine drainage areas have been a key part of many microbial discoveries regarding biological cycling of iron (and the first system from which metagenomics was successfully performed).

Evaluating tone. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The tone of the article is overall neutral. The information presented, especially for the ancient Earth section, does seem to be heavily skewed towards biotic cycling of iron. There is little mention of ancient, abiotic iron cycling, which is especially important as some of the theories discussed are still debated as being of biotic or abiotic origin in certain points of time (BIFs in particular). However, this may be difficult to explain as it is still highly disputed.

=
Evaluating sources. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? ===== Some claims in the article need to have sources added to them. In particular, the third paragraph in the intro lacks sources backing claims made. The source links work, and support the claims laid out in the article. Most sources come from scientific review papers that are published in high-impact journals.

=
Evaluating figure. Does the figure provides a scientifically accurate depiction of the biogeochemical cycle? Is the high quality (neat and high resolution), well-organized, with arrows connecting components of the cycle? Is the figure labeled accurately, with all unlabeled symbols defined in a legend and units provided for the size of reservoirs and fluxes? ===== The figure is an excellent depiction of the iron cycle. The are clear connections for each component of the iron cycle. The sources and sinks are clearly labeled, and units are provided.

=
Evaluating content. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved? Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon? Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics? ===== Everything in this article is related to the nitrogen biogeochemical cycle. However, the layout of the page could be reformatted. The major nitrogen processes (nitrification, DNRA, etc.) are outlined and explained, but the marine nitrogen cycle is also added as a separate section. This page would flow much better if the sections were divided by each ecosystem and what nitrogen processes (both abiotic and biotic) occur there. The page seems skewed more towards biotic processes in terrestrial systems (and always included a rabbit? Which confused me throughout middle and high school as well). There are helpful hyperlinks to other processes and terms that may not be common knowledge.

Evaluating tone. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The article is neutral. As mentioned above, there is considerably more information on terrestrial systems and little to no information on marine and aquatic systems (currently marine cycling seems like an added on afterthought). The anthropogenic views on the nitrogen cycle are also heavily discussed, which is important, but also does not seem to flow well with the current format.

=
Evaluating sources. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? ===== The source links all seem to work and reference unbiased, scientific review papers. The sources back the claims made in the article. The page has many more sources and each fact does seem to be correctly referenced.

=
Evaluating content. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved? Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon? Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics? ===== There is considerably more jargon in this page as compared to the nitrogen cycle page. However, most of the "jargony" words are hyperlinked to other pages, which may help for readers who do not immediately know terms. The introduction only includes information on land-cycling of phosphorous. The connection between land and marine/aquatic system phosphorous cycling should be included to ensure a better overview of this biogeochemical cycle. The sections do not seem to be very cohesive and I think it would be beneficial to restructure this page on more of a overall global view of the phosphorous cycle. The sentences on phosphine seem out of place and oddly placed, but it seems to be recently added on (perhaps due to the recent Venus-phosphine drama).

Evaluating tone. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The intro paragraphs read somewhat like a thesis, and it seems like the writer is trying to persuade the readers of their point. The article would also benefit from many more references, especially in the intro. The article is neutral, but it does seem to read as more of a review paper than basic presentation of facts about this cycle.

=
Evaluating sources. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? ===== The citations and links work. The sources are primarily from scientific review papers and most are fairly recently published in high-impact papers. Many sentences, or even paragraphs, need to have sources added to them.