User:Diazotroph/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Phytoplankton

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Phytoplankton are key players in the global carbon cycle, and as such, I think about them often in the context of my research on marine DOC. It has been interesting to see such a detailed presentation of knowledge that would otherwise have to be obtained through significant time with the primary literature. Articles like this seem helpful in filling in knowledge gaps and providing a starting point for further reading in a specific area.

Evaluate the article
Lead section

The lead section is informative and concise, opening with a comprehensive and straightforward introduction to phytoplankton and explaining their importance. While the lead provides a good overall summary of the article, it does not encompass all of the sections of the article. It does not, however, contain any information that is not included elsewhere in the article.

Content

The content presented is up-to-date and relevant to the broad topic of phytoplankton, but some of the information feels out of place at times. For example, there is a discussion about iron fertilization experiments located under the ‘Ecology’ section, which came about from a passage about the nutrients that phytoplankton rely on. While relevant to the train of thought, this passage felt a bit disjointed. The discussion about climate and plankton might have been more effectively presented in a separate section, particularly the ‘Anthropogenic changes’ section.

There are also instances where some information seems to be missing. For example, it is mentioned that phytoplankton release dissolved organic carbon (DOC), but there is no mention of the other fraction that becomes particulate organic carbon (POC) or further discussion about the implications this has for marine food webs.

Tone and balance

The overall tone of the article is objective and scientific. The topic of phytoplankton does not lend itself towards bias or differences in viewpoints as readily as others might, but regardless, the presentation of information seems balanced and fair. One potentially controversial topic, the idea of iron fertilization to combat anthropogenic climate change, is treated as such. It is mentioned that some scientists advocate for and against it, and the reasons behind each are presented.

There are instances where the objective tone is undermined by wording that is typically used to convey opinion or argument, e.g. “only” and “important” in the below passages:

“They account for about half of global photosynthetic activity and about half of the oxygen production, despite amounting to only about 1% of the global plant biomass.”

…

“Important groups of phytoplankton include the diatoms, cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates, although many other groups are represented.”

Additionally, there are some errors in scientific choice of wording, such as “creation” and “victim” in the below passages:

“They are agents for primary production, the creation of organic compounds from carbon dioxide dissolved in the water…”

…

“If solar radiation is too high, phytoplankton may fall victim to photodegradation.”

Sources and references

Facts presented in the article are supported by reliable sources, drawing heavily on the primary scientific literature from reputable journals including Nature and Biogeosciences. Some information, such as the content about iron fertilization and passages related to climate change impacts, draws from news articles, but the sources are well-established and reputable (such as The New York Times), and the choice of news article over primary literature seems appropriate in these instances. The sources are thorough and current, drawing mostly from literature published in the last two decades. Older sources are cited appropriately, mainly including seminal papers such as The Paradox of the Plankton (1961) and Alfred Redfield’s 1934 paper on fixed plankton stoichiometry.

Organization and writing quality

The article is well-written and easy to read. The information is presented concisely yet comprehensively, and there are few, if any, grammatical errors. The article is well-organized overall, with just a few instances of passages that go off-topic and would be better suited for a separate section (see the discussion about the iron fertilization passage above).

Images and media

There are plenty of good images included throughout the article. These are organized by pertinence to the subject matter, but they are not directly tied in with the text very well. More thorough and original captions explaining the relevance to facts presented in the article are warranted. Some images are missing original captions altogether.

Talk page discussion

There is a fair amount of discussion on the ‘Talk’ page. There is some debate about specific facts that have been presented and subsequently removed. The basis behind these discussions tends to be either inappropriate or lack of referencing altogether. There are also broader-scale discussions about areas of phytoplankton research to include, such as their role in regulating atmospheric oxygen and the effects of ocean acidification on phytoplankton communities. It has been suggested that the topic of phytoplankton is too broad and should be broken down into freshwater and marine subtopics.

This article was originally a Wiki education article, written by a student. It is flagged as being relevant to three different WikiProjects: Algae, Plants, and Limnology and Oceanography, all of which are rated ‘C-class: high importance.’

Overall impressions

Overall, this is a fairly strong and developed article, with room for improvement and expansion. Specifically, some re-organization and expansion upon the figures are warranted, as well as some editing for tone and wording. There is room for topical expansion, re: the atmospheric oxygen and oceanography vs. limnology discussions.