User:Juna Terano/sandbox

Article Evaluations (EAS 4602, Spring 2023)
=== Article 1: Hydrogen cycle ===


 * Content Evaluation: Overall, this article presents little information in a half-organized manner. To improve this article, a more cohesive presentation of information could be included with an extended introduction, in addition to more information about the cycle's significance in other fields. Currently, the article only includes two very specific (and brief) sections on climate change and astrobiology, seemingly out of place, in addition to the relevant introductory discussion on biotic and abiotic cycles. While the organization could use tremendous improvement, the content written is clear with an agreeable amount of references to other pages and recent scientific articles.
 * Tone Evaluation: The tone in this article is superbly written as little bias is presented throughout most sections. Nevertheless, the final section on astrobiology does emphasize certain hypotheses above other well-established facts that could be used to enhance the content of the article.
 * Sources Evaluation: In addition to somewhat recent dates of the references provided, all the links I tested proved functional! In addition, each link led to a scientific research article in a well-established journal. Hopefully I didn't just click on the good links :)

=== Article 2: Nitrogen cycle ===
 * Content Evaluation: This article was much more well organized than the previous one and provided plenty of information with accompanying figures. The quality of the content was excellent and well written, in addition to hosting visuals which aided the text-heavy discussion. Nevertheless, the inclusion of a marine nitrogen cycle section made the inclusion of sections for the terrestrial and atmospheric nitrogen cycle desired while the inclusion of two sections for human influence on the nitrogen cycle overshadowed the sections talking about natural processes in the cycle. I would have recommended this be included in one large section. Moreover, the use of links to other Wikipedia pages could be improved, yet the quantity of content makes this comment less concerning, and more of a suggestion "if there's time".
 * Tone Evaluation: The tone in this article was very academic and felt like reading a textbook. For the topic of the Wikipedia article, I think this neutral approach is very effective.
 * Sources Evaluation: Similar to the previous article, all sources included valid links and reliable scientific publishers. Additionally, the most recent reference was from 2021! Very well cited.

=== Article 3: Silica cycle ===
 * Content Evaluation: This article, like the nitrogen cycle, is content-heavy, and luckily includes relevant figures throughout the sections. Why the flow of content made sense after the first section, the inclusion of an "Overview" section after a mini introduction paragraph made the preliminary paragraph feel irrelevant. Additionally, some text was included throughout the article that was likely not needed to enhance the content. Despite this, the content chosen to be discussed in this article was engaging and interesting such as the connection to the paleoclimate field (slight bias on my part!).
 * Tone Evaluation: Tone was overall neutral, yet engaged with the material without sound too dull.
 * Sources Evaluation: Multiple sources provided and each link led to a reliable scientific source!

Article Evaluations (EAS 4220, Fall 2021)
=== Article 1: Calcium cycle ===


 * Content Evaluation: The article overall presents the necessary information in simple text and uses little jargon. Nevertheless, this simplicity is paired with assumptions regarding audience knowledge, such as references to global warming and climate change without any citations or much elaboration, and there does not appear to be any explanation for the order in which material was described. This incohesive decision by the author made it harder to follow along as text in one paragraph does not lead to information in the following one. Additionally, some of the content described in different sections seems very specific for such a broad topic.
 * Tone Evaluation: While content presentation is decent, yet questionable, the article does a great job presenting information as fact without many author notes. Exceptions include the concluding paragraph where few sentences provide important statements without supporting citations.
 * Sources Evaluation: The sources that are referenced in this article do appear trustworthy (from scientific journals) and relatively to date. I would suggest updating some of the citations which are used in the concluding paragraph given they discuss future predictions which are ever-changing.

=== Article 2: Iron cycle ===


 * Content Evaluation: The content in this article is presented nicely with few grammatical errors and comprehensible text. However, introductory paragraphs repeat material unnecessarily, there is no concluding paragraph, and the section on anthropogenic forces, while well-cited, seems like a great start to a section with an abrupt end. Furthermore, much of the content for this cycle focuses on ferrous/ferric interactions with life with less consideration to abiotic factors. Overall, I enjoyed the presentation of material and found the section describing interactions between this cycle and other biogeochemical cycles fascinating and relevant.
 * Tone Evaluation: This article's tone is quite neutral and, apart from the lack of abiotic discussion, presents the information in a balanced manner.
 * Sources Evaluation: The selection of citations is excellent given the strength of their reputation (again, highly reputable scientific journals) and the quantity of references per text.

=== Article 3: Selenium cycle ===


 * Content Evaluation: This article has a strong introduction which proceeds to the main point without hesitation. Overall, the information presented is very cohesive and legible; however, there is a severe lack of content. While most of what is written enhances the article, the fact that there is only one section (aquatic ecosystems) makes the focus of the selenium cycle quite small and possibly incorrect. Unlike previous articles, moreover, this article's transition from introduction to content is exceptional.
 * Tone Evaluation: The tone of the article was not only neutral, but quite direct in presenting the information as it exists. Obviously, I would state that aquatic ecosystems were overrepresented in the article due to the lack of any other content.
 * Sources Evaluation: Most likely the worst aspect of this article, the lack of citations makes information presented questionable. Furthermore, while all four citations derive from scientific journals, three of them were written before 2000 while the most recent reference (from 2015) is only used for a figure. To strengthen the article, more [balanced] content would need to be added in addition to more relevant sources for the foundation of all the information presented.