User:Eskibinski/sandbox

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
Yes.

Is there anything that distracted you?
Not really.

Is any information out of date?
I don't know much about the study of the selenium cycle, but a few of the sources are a bit old, especially the one from '64.

Is anything missing that could be added?
There's lots that could be added, about specific pathways or environmentalism or human influences or any number of things, it's quite a short article.

What else could be improved?
Maybe the style of writing, it's sounds a little bit like a very young person wrote it.

Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon?
Yeah.

Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics?
Yes.

Is the article neutral?
Yes.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
No.

Do the links work?
All of them work.

Does the source support the claims in the article?
Yes.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
No, there are quite a few sections without references.

Where does the information come from?
All the citations are from scholarly journals.

Are these neutral sources?
Yes.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
Yes.

Is there anything that distracted you?
No.

Is any information out of date?
The sources seemed recent enough.

Is anything missing that could be added?
Like I said for the last one, there's nothing missing per se, but there's always a lot you could add about specific processes.

What else could be improved?
A few more hyperlinks to words that the everyday person might not know (ex: photooxidized).

Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon?
Yep.

Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics?
Yes.

Is the article neutral?
Yes.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
No.

Do the links work?
Yes.

Does the source support the claims in the article?
Yes.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
There is one reference I'm a little worried about, where they cite Oceana, a nonprofit lobbyist group. I don't know much about Oceana, but they seem rather small (Wikipedia said around 200 employees, is that small? not sure what the average non-profit employee size is) and it was about biomagnification and I just think you probably could have easily found a scholarly review on the topic instead of Oceana's website.

Where does the information come from?
Every one of them, except the oceana one, came from scholarly sources.

Are these neutral sources?
yes.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
Yes.

Is there anything that distracted you?
No.

Is any information out of date?
Weird thing: one of the sources takes you to a page on the wayback machine from 2014 on this really outdated looking website for the soil society of America and I feel like that's really unnecessary considering its a citation for eutrophication, a subject which has a million really great resources? Other than that, seemed pretty good.

Is anything missing that could be added?
I don't think so.

What else could be improved?
Way more citations. A lot of info didn't have a citation.

Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon?
Yeah.

Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics?
Yes, but in my opinion not enough.

Is the article neutral?
yes.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
no.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
no.

Do the links work?
Some of them do not. And some do not have links at all.

Does the source support the claims in the article?
Yes.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
There are several sections without citations unfortunately.

Where does the information come from?
Mostly scholarly or governmental sources (except for that weird wayback machine link).

Are these neutral sources?
Seems so.