User:Kyoo98/sandbox

= Article Evaluation =

Evaluation for Article 1: Carbon Cycle
Carbon cycle


 * Everything in the article is relevant to the topic.
 * There is no jargon, and the editors used easy-to-understand wording.
 * It was useful that the article provided Wikipedia article links to relevant scientific terms that the general public would have trouble recognizing.
 * There are plenty of relevant, supportive figures to help visualize concepts discussed.
 * The information is up-to-date.
 * It covers all aspects of the carbon cycle effectively.
 * Nothing was distracting and was, overall, well-written.
 * A neutral, encyclopedia tone was utilized throughout the article, and the article focuses on the science of the carbon cycle (especially for the anthropogenic effects on the carbon cycle part).
 * In the first sentence of the section "Human influence on carbon cycle", it states that "human activity has substantially impacted the carbon cycle after the Industrial Revolution" (this is a fact, but due to the use of the word "substantially", it can be viewed as a bias or overrepresentation that some audiences may disagree with or feel uncomfortable with). Better neutral wording can be used here.
 * A lot of sources were used.
 * All sources were linked and footnoted.
 * All links worked.
 * Sources were effectively used to support the information in the Wikipedia article and provide more information/clarification on the topic being discussed.
 * A majority of sources are neutral scientific papers and articles written by credible authors.
 * Overall, neutral sources are used.

Evaluation for Article 2: Iron Cycle
Iron cycle


 * The article provided Wikipedia article links for scientific terms that general public may not know/recognize.
 * There were good figures that supported the content.
 * No jargon was used. The article was friendly for a general public audience to read and understand.
 * It discusses all iron cycle concepts effectively.
 * Information on the percentage of iron in the Earth's crust in the first paragraph of the article may want to be added for clarification.
 * Information is up-to-date.
 * The article actually used superscripts when needed (i.e. ionic charges) which allowed for better viewing and proper formatting.
 * A neutral, encyclopedia tone was used throughout the article.
 * None of the information was controversial.
 * Some footnotes do not have easy-access, direct links to view sources.
 * Hyperlinks to some sources in the References list were not provided.
 * All other links that were provided do work, though.
 * Sources are relevant to the content.
 * A majority of the sources are from neutral science journals/publications.
 * Overall, they are all reliable sources.

Evaluation for Article 3: Nitrogen Cycle
Nitrogen cycle


 * Background box for images and captions in the middle of the article may want to be included, so that it is easier to read and distinguish the image captions from the article content.
 * The article provided Wikipedia article links for scientific terms that are unfamiliar to the general public.
 * All figures support the content and are easy to read.
 * No jargon was used.
 * It explains all nitrogen cycle concepts clearly.
 * Information is up-to-date.
 * A brief paragraph on the "History of the Nitrogen Cycle" may be added at the beginning as an introduction.
 * A neutral, encyclopedia tone was used.
 * Nothing was overrepresented or biased.
 * All links work.
 * All sources have easy-access hyperlinks to directly access the sources.
 * All sources are linked and footnoted.
 * Sources are relevant to topics discussed.
 * A majority of sources are from neutral science journals or government organization (".org") websites.
 * They are credible sources.