User:JPOZ59/sandbox

 Article Evaluations 

Hydrogen Cycle

Evaluating content. I believe everything in the article is relevant to the topic. I can't say that anything in particular distracted me; however, I did go off on a tangent. I had never heard of the Jeans Escape before, so I decided to read more by clicking the link, only then I realized it was part of Atmospheric Escape (which I am also not super familiar with). I enjoyed learning something new by exploring the "Atmospheric Escape" page. The information in the Hydrogen Cycle article appears to be based on current information. After performing a quick Google search, it appears there is no real consensus on how old peer reviewed articles are to be considered out-of-date. I believe this article is up to date since it is a broad over view of processes for which we know quite a lot about. Furthermore, with the exception of a couple, most sources for the articles are within the last twenty years. I believe the article could go into more detail in each section, it would also be nice to see a section on the history of hydrogen an how it came to be. Additionally, it would be nice to see more figures in the article. I believe the scientific information provided is clear and presented in a way that a non-scientist reader can understand. The article does have links to other Wikipedia pages, which I found very helpful. Furthermore, the article links to other helpful content and sources so the reader can further understand the topic being discussed.

Evaluating tone. The article is neutral and only appears to contain unbiased facts. I believe the sections called "Relevance for the Global Climate" and "Implications for Astrobiology" are underrepresented in the article. Based on the sources, there is quite a lot of information that could be added to these sections. I think these section have a good start and contain relevant information, but I believe it should be flushed out a little more.

Evaluating sources. I checked a few citations and the links are working. For the [FeFe- and [NiFe]-hydrogenase diversity, mechanism, and maturation ] I checked out didn't appear to have any biases. I did have difficulty finding some supporting information for the statement in the article "These H2-metabolizing enzymes are found in all three domains of life, and out of known genomes over 30% of microbial taxa contain hydrogenase genes." I read through relevant portions of the article and did several searches within the document and wasn't able to find much on this statement. I do want to note, for the other statements in the articles that used this paper as a source, I did find supporting evidence within the paper. I am not sure why I had such a difficult time with the statement I mention above. The other sources I checked out are "The Production of Methane, Hydrogen, and Organic Compounds in Ultramafic-Hosted Hydrothermal Vents of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge" and "Molecular hydrogen in the troposphere: Global distribution and budget", both of which support the statements in the article and appear to be unbiased. I didn't see bias in any of the sources I checked; furthermore, if there is any bias in the sources I didn't check, there is not any note of it in the Hydrogen Cycle article. The sources I choose to look at all come from reliable sources (ie. peer reviewed journals).

Carbon Cycle

Evaluating content. I enjoyed reading the "Carbon Cycle" article, I thought it was very well written and informative. There is a really nice figure of the global cycle included in this article. I thought the figures were well chosen and help the reader to visualize how the carbon cycle works between the atmosphere and the land. It appears everything within the article is relevant to the subject, I enjoyed reading about the future of the carbon cycle in the "Atmosphere" section of the article. I was very engaged in the article and nothing distracted me from the article, it was a very interesting read. The information appears to be up-to-date. I did feel like there could have been a section devoted to climate change and the future of the carbon cycle. There was random information on this dispersed throughout the article, but I believe there was definitely enough information to form its own section, especially after looking at some of the sources. With that being said, there is a section on "Climate change feedbacks", which I found interesting but it was very specific and I believe could have been flushed out more to include other aspects of climate change, with respect to carbon. I do believe the information presented in the article is easy to read and follow, even for those without a scientific background. Furthermore, I thought the article did an excellent job of linking several topics to other Wikipedia articles for more information.

Evaluating tone. I thought the tone of the article seemed to be very neutral and only focused on the facts. In my opinion, nothing stuck out as being particularly overrepresented, or underrepresented, with respect to viewpoints.

Evaluating sources. I checked a few of the sources and all the links worked. I choose three sources to delve deeper into and the sources appeared to support the statements made in the article. Additionally, the sources were informative and from reliable sources, including but not limited to IPCC reports and several well known scientific journals. The three sources I looked into further were Toward quantifying the response of the oceans' biological pump to climate change, Deciphering ocean carbon in a changing world, and Magmas Under Pressure. I found all of these source to be interesting and reliable, they were also referenced appropriately within the article. The sources I checked out didn't appear to have any bias. Additionally, the article doesn't make mention of any biases, which would leave me the impression that the sources don't have any biases. If there was any bias noted in the article, that would have been a source I would have chosen to look into further. Overall, I thought the article was well written and informative, I am sure lots of people had contributed over a good amount of time to this article, since there was so much information and a plethora of sources.

Mercury Cycle

Evaluating content. While everything in the article is relevant to the topic, I don't believe any of the sections go into very much detail about the mercury cycle. Furthermore, there seems to be some randomness to the statements made and doesn't flow well from one statement to the next. This article seems to have a lot of random statements about the mercury cycle without going into much detail about any of them. The processes section is a good example of this, the first paragraph isn't too bad, but then there are some random facts following the first paragraph which don't flow well. I think this could be corrected by flushing out each of the individual topics within the section. Nothing in particular distracted me when reading the article, but there really wasn't much information in this article, I believe this article is definitely a work in progress. I don't think there is any information that is considered out of date, but I do believe that there is a severe lack in sources and information within the provided sources that is not being used in the article. I think the best ways to improve this article would be to add more content to each section and flush out the content that is already there to help the article flow better. Additionally, I think it would be nice to see an anthropogenic section in the article. There is a brief mention on anthropogenic sources of mercury, but I think this could be its own section. There is a plethora of information on this topic and it would also add significantly to the sources list. I would also be nice to see more figures to help the reader visualize other aspects of the mercury cycle. I do believe the scientific information in the article in presented clearly and accurately, as discussed above, I would like to see more information in each of the sections. I do believe the article does a good job of linking to other Wikipedia that have more information on the topic.

Evaluating tone. The article appears neutral and to only present facts, but as discussed above there is a severe lack in information so this may not be true once the article is flushed out more. I believe there are several areas which are overrepresented, or underrepresented, just based on the lack of information provided.

Evaluating sources. I checked several sources to ensure the link worked correctly and it appear they do. I looked into three sources a little more closely for accuracy and for accuracy and relevant information. These three are Micro-CT 3D imaging reveals the internal structure of three abyssal xenophyophore species (Protista, Foraminifera) from the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, Ecological effects, transport, and fate of mercury: a general review, and Cycling of mercury in the environment: Sources, fate, and human health implications: A review. The statements made in the articles are accurate, with respect to the references that are cited. However, most references are cited once or not at all. The Cycling of mercury in the environment: Sources, fate, and human health implications: A review reference is an interesting one, when you go to the paper there is an additional reference at the bottom which states "This article is part of the following collections". When you click on the provided link you are taken to another page with a lot of viable references. I didn't check them all out but the ones that I did look at would have contributed nicely to this article. When I looked at this articles talk page, it seems others share my insight on the lack of sources and information this article presents. Additionally, in the talk page someone posted several references that could be used to improve the article, which I thought was a really nice addition to help those interested in making the article more informative. However, I do want to note that the sources. The sources I checked out didn't appear to have any bias. Additionally, the article doesn't make mention of any biases, which would leave me the impression that the sources don't have any biases. Overall, I found the article lacking in sources and information. Additionally, I thought the article could use some work in its structure and flow.