User:KumruKocaman/sandbox

Evaluating Content
I liked the content in the nitrogen cycle. The article discusses the standard processes of the nitrogen cycle and has excellent figures. I was happy to see one of my favorite figures (The flow of nitrogen through the ecosystem). Although there have been many new figures about Nitrogen cycling in literature, I find this figure very well made. The processes are listed very clearly and explained in detail. As an environmental engineer, I have a biased opinion on sectioning. I don’t think the consequences of human modification of the nitrogen cycle should be at the end. As a reader, I am distracted by the content list. The article jumps from processes to the marine nitrogen cycle and later to human impact. I also think that the last section needs more figures. It is very dense with text and not very visually appealing. Since Wikipedia is a resource for all, I think the impact human have on the nitrogen cycle should be an attractive piece of text to all audiences.

Evaluating Tone
The article is scientific and objective. The tone is neutral, and I haven’t seen any biased claims.

Evaluating Sources
The cited sources are generally scientific journal papers and trustworthy websites. I did not find a link that was not working, but I didn’t check all references.

Evaluating Content
The content of the carbon cycle article is superior. The list of content is very well organized. The way the article is visually organized is also excellent. Although it is a long article, the text is visually appealing because of well selected figures and excellent page design. The introductory section (main concepts) gives great background information without being boring. This section is precise and easy to follow. I think this is an excellent example of a good Wikipedia article because the information in this article is for everyone.

Evaluating Tone
The article is scientific and objective. The tone is neutral, and I haven’t seen any biased claims.

Evaluating Sources
The cited sources are scientific journal papers, government resources, and trustable websites. All the links I checked were up to date.

Evaluating Content
The information in the article is well-written. However, the organization of the headings can be made better. The article first starts with a short introduction. This part consists of the general background information; I don’t think the text needs any edits. However, in my opinion, the first figure is a disaster. The color selection and the text size compared to the figure could be better. The second section is about phosphorus in the environment. Again, the colors in the first figure here (Phosphorus cycle on land) are not visually appealing. The very bright dark backgrounds and small white text make the figure look more confusing than it is. After reviewing the carbon cycle, I would make many format changes in the phosphorus cycle article. I think the content is generally adequate, but the article needs more figures—especially real-life photos of eutrophication. I would also change the content list order to make it more similar to the nitrogen cycle article. For the part of human influence, the article needs more content and appealing figures. It would be nice to mention also how our water resources are under threat due to high phosphorus concentrations.

Evaluating Tone
The article is scientific and objective. The tone is neutral, and I haven’t seen any biased claims.

Evaluating Sources
The cited sources are generally scientific journal papers and trustworthy websites. I did not find a link that was not working, but I didn’t check all references.