User:Pengxiao Xu/sandbox



=Oxygen Cycle Article Evaluation =

Content
The content of this article is generally nice. Information are well presented, two figures are shown, different reservoirs and fluxes are listed, important reactions are provided, and no distraction exists. The article is well written in a concise way and is easy to understand.

But, there are still some shortcomings as far as I concerned.


 * 1) The first figure is too brief, and no amount of flux is shown on it.
 * 2) Some of its data is outdated, such as the reservoir capacities and residence time. The author cited Walker's book published in 1980 while there is a more recent review about global oxygen cycle written by Kasting and Canfield in 2012.

Tone
This article is written in a neutral tone and I observed no biased statement. All the statements are based on the data. Though the data itself might be inaccurate or outdated, there is no problem about the writing style.

Source
There are many problems with the source of this article.


 * 1) Six different sources are listed in the Reference part, which is good but not enough in my opinion, especially only one of them is a published academic paper.
 * 2) The First source is an article in Scientific American and has a link followed, but the link has already expired. I can't see the article by clicking the link provided.
 * 3) Sources are a bit of outdated. Two Scientific American articles are published in 2003 and 1970 respectively and the academic paper is from a book published in 1980. More recent works is available, e.g. Kasting & Canfield, 2012.
 * 4) The fourth source is actually notes taken in a class, which cannot be considered as very reliable.

Talk Page
The talk page of this article is quite good, some relative questions are discussed and mistakes are corrected.