User:Cleca9159/sandbox

= Evaluation for Silica Cycle =
 * 1) Content: Overall, there was good content in this article. The lead section gave a decent, if brief, overview of what the silica cycle is and why it can be important to climate change. Referencing opal silica is a little strange, especially since it's not tied into anything and they don't also mention silicates in the lead section, which are more common overall. They also may have explained a bit more about why silica is one of the most common elements (where it is found and what it's used for) in the lead section, but the cyclical part of the article was well explained. The only major problem I have with it is that there are many numbers used for the marine cycle section and not any numbers used for the terrestrial cycle section. In addition, the introduction for the terrestrial section mostly just talks about the use of silicon in plants, when its main source is rocks. However, overall I think it explained all of the important parts. The newest section on riverine and aeolian contributions is mostly just confusing, though. Its prose is very scientific, and it doesn't explain thoroughly what it is first; it just launches right into data. The figures are very helpful for understanding the content.
 * 2) Tone: The tone is pretty good, especially in the beginning. Most of the time, when a scientific word was introduced, the next sentence was used to explain it, and they were linked to other wikipedia articles. The tone was neutral, so I didn't see any biases present, but the phrasing seemed a bit too scientific in most places.
 * 3) Sources: The sources appear very comprehensive for the article. There are almost thirty of them, and there are many in-text citations throughout the article. Some sentences even have two sources cited. The sources also appear to be mostly scientific journals, making them trustworthy. There is one part that mentions that verification is needed, but it does have a citation attached, so it's not terribly concerning.

Evaluation for Selenium Cycle

 * 1) Content: The content was a little sparse; it mostly focused on the aquatic ecosystem and the metabolization of different forms of selenium, but it did explain those concepts pretty thoroughly. The lead section did a good job of introducing the cycle by describing what life uses it, but it didn't mention any geochemical cycling processes. Most of it was easy to understand, but some parts had prose that was too scientific, especially during the mobilization processes section. It is also interesting that the figure shows aquatic and terrestrial systems, but there is only an aquatic section for the selenium cycle. I think what is there is explained pretty well, but there could definitely be more content about the terrestrial cycle and the geochemistry parts of it. The figure is the only thing that touches on either of those things.
 * 2) Tone: The tone is fine, for most of it. The largest problem is when it slips into scientific jargon that wouldn't make sense to an ordinary reader (like when discussing the valence levels of selenium in the lead section). It doesn't seem biased towards anything, other than the fact that its content is limited. The tone is neutral and informative overall.
 * 3) Sources: There are very few sources for the selenium cycle. It's probable that there's just very little research done on selenium, but it's still disheartening to see only four references given. In addition, these references are only cited sporadically throughout the text, so the reader has to guess that the entire paragraph was sourced from the single reference, instead of it being made explicitly clear by putting a citation after each sentence. This article could definitely use more sources. The sources available do appear to be reliable, as they are either scientific articles or a technical report.

Evaluation for Iron Cycle

 * 1) Content: The content was very comprehensive for the iron cycle. The introduction clearly laid out how it is important to microorganisms and thus is cycled through terrestrial and marine environments as part of their food. I think it would be more useful for the introduction to describe a few abiotic processes in the iron cycle rather than oxidation states, but everything was clear at least. There wasn't too much scientific jargon, and while data was used to describe rates of various steps in the cycle, it was not all in one chunk, which made it easier to understand. The ancient earth section was interesting and helped describe why most of our iron is in rocks. The interactions with other cycles was also an interesting section that provided more context for how important iron is as a micronutrient. The various diagrams were very helpful for understanding the cycles the words described.
 * 2) Tone: The tone was neutral and explained each section with the same amount of emphasis. Sections were slightly different sizes (the marine iron cycle was about twice as large as the terrestrial one), but that seemed more indicative of the amount of data/information rather than a bias.
 * 3) Sources: There were thirty five sources and one "further reading" text, so the article felt very trustworthy. Most sentences had a citation after them, so it was easy to follow the text to its source. The sources mostly appeared to be scientific articles, and many were published in reputable journals like Nature and Science. The only issue I saw with citation is that the marine cycle had a lot of references to one specific text; it would have been better to have a larger diversity of sources for that section, but that's a very minor point.