User:Dclark57/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Hydrogen cycle

Content: I'll be honest, it seems a little underdeveloped. The "relevance for the global climate" section could use some further information, as well as the intro to "Biotic Cycles".

Tone: The tone is neutral, but doesn't contain any controversial topics in the first place.

Sources: Sources are from reliable, seemingly unbiased places. DOI links work. There is only one source linked to the intro, could use a few more.

Phosphorus cycle

Content: Well-developed, neutral tone. Information is relevant and not distracting.

Tone: The tone is neutral, but doesn't contain any controversial topics in the first place.

Sources: Sources are a little skimpy. Should ideally be more than 30 for a large article like this. Large gaps in between citations in the paper. DOI links work.

Silica cycle

Content: Well-developed, neutral tone. Info is relevant and not distracting.

Tone: The tone is neutral, but doesn't contain any controversial topics in the first place.

Sources: Sources are well used. DOI links work. Come from reputable review articles.

Article Evaluation (Fall 2021)
Selenium cycle

Content: Everything in article is relevant to topic. Nothing seemed distracting or out of date. Placing information about the soil part of the selenium cycle under the "aquatic ecosystems" header seemed misleading somewhat confusing, especially given that the graphic delineates the two (as well as air). Article links to related topics.

Tone: Article seems neutral, although it doesn't cover particularly controversial topics.

Sources: All links work and are from reliable, trusted, and neutral sources.

Mercury cycle

Content: Everything in article is related to topic, and nothing seemed distracting or out of date. Some scientific jargon was used, especially in the "Processes" section. The leading paragraph also seemed to be underdeveloped. Article links to related topics.

Tone: Tone seemed unbiased and neutral, although it didn't cover any particularly controversial topics.

Sources: Most links worked (#10 didn't seem to work), and all sources seemed to be from reliable sources.

Calcium cycle

Content: Article was mostly relevant, although the second paragraph of the "Industrial uses..." section seemed to veer off topic. Article links to related topics.

Tone: Article seemed neutral, maintaining unbiased viewpoints when approaching the topic of the carbon cycle.

Sources: All links seem to work, and sources seem to be from reliable sources. The first paragraph of the last section seems to lack sources.