User:Confidedbliss/sandbox

Article Evaluation:

article of choice <- wow look at me using links


 * Everything in article is relevant
 * Information does not seem outdated. Some of the oldest materials were from 2008 which pertained to findings at that time. This could be updated as 10 years have passed since, but is still relatively reliable.
 * In terms of missing ideas, I think more could be added into the reversal section and more pictures could be added to the "locations" section. This would add substance to the article as it would put a visual to the stated places and perhaps show how they've changed over time. For reversal it would exemplify what it looked like polluted for not polluted
 * More could be included for reversal. For such an important topic, it was left last with little substance. Perhaps methods and current acts of improvements should be noted
 * The topic itself is rather neutral. It's clear that dead zones are not desirable, but this interpretation is garnered from facts. As the article is fact-based their is little to no bias in any direction
 * all the links work and represent the info in the article substantially
 * All the references were reliable and notable (magazines, scholarly articles, NASA) with many of their own citations with similar neutral bias
 * Lots of the conversation on the talk page related to removing info that didn't contribute much to the article, someone also found a misrepresented link and others are asking question related to the topic
 * the talk page and article itself are still updated frequently with the last edit to article being in Nov 2018
 * The article is part of multiple (5) wikiprojects
 * The article is rated as C class?

Potential articles to edit:

Mercury cycle

-neutral

-relevant to topic

-not all claims have citations

-a lot of info seems as if it could be added (not much discussion on talk page either)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denitrification

-neutral

-relevant to topic

-lots of reliable sources

-Nowhere near made for the general public

-assumes a lot of prior knowledge

-needs to be more ELI5

Micro-sustainability

-neutral

-relevant to topic

-not all sources are very reliable (as doesn't have many sources to begin)

-seems like it could be developed much further

Citations:

added citation to the mercury article at very beginning, further expanding on it's room temperature qualities (was vague before)

Added the following peer review to wylanz

Hey, I couldn't find a rough draft for your article, but I thought I could leave a few tips to improve it for when you start writing!

One overall thing is the grammar and language used in the article, I think a fair bit of it can be reworded to be more fluid and concise. E.g.

"Plastic soup is a term referring to pollution of the sea by plastics in general, ranging from large pieces of fishing gear that can entrap marine animals to the microplastics and nanoplastics that result from the breakdown or photodegradation of plastic waste in surface waters, rivers or oceans."

--> "Plastic soup is a term referring to pollution of the sea by plastics. These can range from large pieces of fishing gearto the microplastics and nanoplastics."

I think the article could use some structure and subheadings such as "history" to go into detail about the coining of the term.

One last thing I think would be beneficial would be other cases of "plastic soup" and different nation's success with dealing with it!

Added the following peer review to Kthay

Hey! I think you're making great changes to the article by not only expanding on it, but in relevant ways and giving it subheadings! Also your linking of other articles for things such as Monte Rosa is great! A few changes I would make are as follows:

1) I wouldn't recommend including the following as it's a bit redundant since this was introduced in the intro:

Different Types of Glacial Refugia In studies exploring the extent of glacial refugia in mountain species, three distinct types of glacial refugia have been identified.

-you could just kind of dive into each one under it's subheading as you have after

2) Refugia is a third person plural noun so you'd need to follow it with plural terms such as "have" instead of "has"

3) If you'd like you could link this to help give some context for AFLP

4) You could get rid of some of the "unlike this region" statements and some commas to make the article more concise, but this is very minor.

You've done a great job with the article so all of these are just minor things!

References to use:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health

https://people.uwec.edu/piercech/hg/mercury_water/cycling.htm

https://geology.com/minerals/cinnabar.shtml

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/pollutants/mercury-environment/about/biogeochemistry.html#mercuryoxidation

Ideas to add
-Why is mercury toxic and in what forms ...touched on this a bit..will talk about it more in methyl mercury section

-other natural procedures of cycle

...talked a bit more about breakdown of mercury and presence in air

-add citations for toxicity

...added stuff about why it is toxic

-talk more about the cycle itself..seems to have deviated from that

...added to this

-maybe find and add a picture of the cycle

...couldnt find a picutre that was usable and can't really make my own professional one...added picture of mercury ore

-go more in depth about process, break it down.

...will tlak about oxidation and methylwfasfas

Reflective S.A.
Before delving too much into my wikipedia process, I'd like to first say how appreciative I am after having contributed to an article. I'm blown away by the effort put into these pages were are FREE for use. People are willing to put in massive amounts of time and research into producing quality, informative articles.

As a result of the effort put in by various individuals, it was really difficult to critique articles. I found myself looking for articles that weren't yet written or that had low ratings (low grade scores). I figured these would be the easiest to critique as they still had far to go in ways of improvement since they were either underdeveloped or poorly written. The article I selected fit right into the "underdeveloped" category. Many sentences could have been developed and the actually cycle itself was kind of brushed over so I knew I could contribute to that.

My edits can be found on the article, but they mostly included spelling/grammar changes and a few insertions of detail. I felt like spelling and grammar are important to the article because it doesn't seem very reputable and informative if it doesn't make sense or sentences don't transition well. The details I added were pertinent to the topic itself since not much information was added to the actual process itself. I discussed the circulation of mercury and sort of where it comes from. I further expanded on the toxicity section of it (though I don't find this section necessary, I found it didn't have a proper intro). I further broke down the cycle as well into the more nitty gritty occurrences that happen within it such as oxidization and transitions from different forms.

I found the peer review process to be rather insightful because as much as you're helping your peers, you're also gaining ideas about things to add and ways to do them. Unfortunately, I did not have any peer reviews, but I did give a few. My number one comment was typically grammar and sentence structure. This is significant as Wikipedia articles are intended for a broad audience, thus appropriate diction and straightforward sentences must be used to aid in comprehension. I gave some suggestions into additional resources that could be used to aid my peers with their articles and also gave advice on structuring the article.

I didn't receive feedback from other editors, however someone was simultaneously working on this article as I was. This was interesting as I could see their sandbox and what they thought needed improvement and this provided me with some ideas on what to add as well and ways to build on the things they wanted to discuss.

Overall, I learned that wikipedia is very underrated as a reliable academic source. I think it is quite reputable after seeing all the effort that goes into the articles and research done to write them. I also learned that making these articles isn't easy and it rather time consuming. Something as simple as inserting an image as rather tedious and sometimes can't be done due to copyright. Compared to other assignments I've done in the past, this was relatively fun. I like how I'm able to contribute to something greater with other individuals in a topic I'm interested in and knowing that the research I've done into this topic may benefit someone in their learning. Due to it's popularity, wikipedia can be used to improve public understanding of pretty much anything because articles are typically set with a less formal tone and easier to understand terminology than scientific papers. This is essential because an individual with average education can then comprehend the importance of the topic. This importance can often be lost in a scientific paper because you're sometimes left so lost just trying to understand the meaning of one word. If someone is interested in learning about something, wikipedia is a great resource.