User:Mmorris95/sandbox

= Article Evaluations (Fall 2021) =

Hydrogen Cycle
This article provides consistent relevant information on its topic, ensuring to introduce each of the subtopics within the introduction. While the information is overall well formatted with good citations throughout, there is still room for improvement. I think the addition of chemical formulas or other figures to support the information would go a long way to make the article's content more digestible. Specifically I feel these are needed in the biotic and abiotic cycles sections. Additionally, the article feels like it needs more information added to each of its sub-sections to fully encompass the subject matter. However, the article does a splendid job of referencing other Wikipedia articles, which helps to support the content already present in the article. The authors also kept a neutral and informative tone throughout, with nothing that seems too biased. Looking through some of their sources, they all appear to be peer-reviewed and published through credible sources, so the information does seem reliable and I had no issues with broken links. Overall, this article does a great job introducing the hydrogen cycle and is well on its way to being a great article, lacking mostly in the quantity of information and figures.

Iron Cycle
With many credible references, this article provides a great deal of information concerning the iron cycle and some of its outward effects. The opening paragraph provides a good introduction to the topic, making sure to link to many relevant Wikipedia articles and giving context to the content discussed in the preceding sub-sections. However, parts of the writing in the article, especially the introduction, feels like it's repeating itself and can be a bit distracting to the reader, so a revision here would help out the overall quality. Along with the introductory paragraphs, there is a figure and description that helps to visually present the processes involved in the cycle. This is a great component for the article and I think the sub-sections could also use some figures, most notably chemical formulas, to accompany the article's current content. Another concern for the writing I had was the different way they referred Fe(II) and Fe(III). I saw it written as both Fe2+ and Fe(II) which isn't much of a problem but consistent formatting would make for a more appealing article. The overall tone of the article felt neutral and unbiased and combined with sources from credible publishers, the content seems reliable and professional.

Silica Cycle
The introduction for the article briefly introduces the topic with enough context to the sub-topics without feeling too overbearing. Paired with the main figure and description, this a great way to introduce the topic and give a quick visual and written summary of the article's content. The writing throughout the article is very clear with appropriate citations from credible, peer-reviewed sources. For the sources I checked, the hyperlinks worked and the information supported what was written in the article. The authors also ensured to keep an neutral tone, only making claims based on reliably sourced facts. There are several figures throughout with relevant descriptions and text within the article referring to them. Overall, the article does a great job providing information on the subject with the sub-sections supporting the topics broken down in the overview.

= Article Evaluations (Spring 2023) =

Phosphorus Cycle
The authors for this article presented the information with little to no bias and an overall neutral tone. There was one sentence in the introduction that used the phrase "the phosphorous cycle should be viewed..." that could be interpreted as showing a bias for a specific viewpoint, but the rest of the article avoided this type of word choice. A good portion of the article is backed up by peer review literature, but there are some sections lacking a good source or any source at all. Most sources I checked successfully linked to their articles with a couple of exceptions. The content of the article feels a bit hard to follow since the majority of the content is in one section. Breaking the section up could help make the article feel a bit more approachable. The figure offers a good visuals but naming some of the transfer processes would be beneficial alongside a brief caption. Less focus on the function of phosphorous in the Earth system and more emphasis on the mechanisms of the sources, sinks, and transfer in the Earth system would also strengthen the content.

Oxygen Cycle
The Oxygen cycle article does a fairly good job communicating the mechanisms involved, with most of the content well source and easily understood figure. The tone in the article is relatively unbiased, utilizing a variety of different articles sourced from different journals. However, there are some sections throughout the article that lack a source, namely the "ozone" section and a couple of the "sources and sinks" subsections. Some of the references are also a bit dated, such as the values presented in the tables in the "capacities and fluxes" section being sourced from a book published in 1980. That being said, all of the reference links worked for me and nothing stood out as an unreliable source. The general content of the article is done well and is easily understood but could be organized for ease of reading. For example, I think the second paragraph in the introduction could be combined with "sphere" sections to make the introduction feel more concise and get rid of some of the one-sentence-long sections. If more information is found for each of the spheres then it could warrant breaking this new section down into subsections.

Mercury Cycle
This article offers well-sourced information throughout from a combination of peer review literature and articles from governing bodies. All links that I checked worked correctly and lead to sources that supported the statements in the article. The tone of the article remains neutral throughout, primarily just summarizing the facts presented in the references. The existing content for the article is great, but I think it could be improved in terms of presentation. For the figure visualizing the cycle, I think distinguishing between natural vs. anthropogenic fluxes by changing the color of the arrows would be a worthwhile improvement. The caption could also be expanded to summarize the key points of the cycle. The general flow of the article's information could also be improved. Rather than dividing the sections into sources and then processes, I think it may help to divide the article based on either where the source/process occurs (i.e., atmosphere vs. lithosphere) or the type of mechanism involved (i.e., natural vs. anthropogenic). This would make it easier for the reader to link the where the processes occur and between which reservoirs the transfer is occurring. Alternatively using subsections with the current outline may help. For additional content, I think future editors should dive deeper into each individual process.