User:Sdenviogeo/sandbox

Article Evaluation (EAS 4602)
Silica cycle:


 * many sources, and a good mix between older and more recent sources
 * includes many links to other wikipedia articles for key words
 * the paragraph about diatoms in the overview section does not have any sources
 * the paragraph on sandy beaches in the marine inputs section seems a bit biased, as it only presents results from a single study and does not mention other studies on the topic
 * the role in climate regulation section has one sentence with a reference in MLA in text citation format rather than the wikipedia format
 * generally written well; information is presented clearly

Sulfur cycle:

Calcium cycle:
 * many sentences are not cited
 * some incomplete references
 * the figure in the sources and sinks section seems a little random, as acidifying emissions from food is not mentioned in the section
 * the evolution of the sulfur cycle section could be split into subsections, and the great oxidation event section could be a subsection under that rather than its own section
 * could include more links to other wikipedia articles (e.g. residence time, symbiosis, pyrite, etc.)
 * information is presented clearly


 * last 4 sections do not use many citations
 * last 4 sections also do not include many links to other wikipedia articles
 * the oceanic part of the cycle is not explained fully
 * in the "changes in global climate and the calcium cycle" subsection, ocean acidification is mentioned but its impact on the calcium cycle is not explained, only its impact on organisms
 * the human/animal use section does not belong in this article

Article Evaluation
Mercury cycle:


 * secondary sources are not explained well
 * last sentence of secondary sources section is off topic and not explained
 * processes section could be split into smaller sections to explain each step of the cycle more throughly
 * processes are stated but not explained
 * too much jargon (photooxidation, evasion from oceans and lakes, re-volatilize, etc)
 * lacks flow, connection between sources and processes is not explained
 * neutral in tone
 * links to sources work and most are recent; sources seem reliable

Selenium cycle:


 * not a lot of facts; lots of "it is thought that..."
 * very few citations
 * many sentences are have no citation
 * does not talk about sources or other ecosystems besides aquatic
 * mobilization processes section has a lot of jargon that could be explained or linked to other pages
 * sources are outdated (3 out of 4 are over 20 years old)

Iron cycle:


 * plentiful reliable sources; well-cited; links work
 * information is well-presented, organized, and relevant
 * more information could be provided for terrestrial ecosystems section, such as interactions with organisms
 * could include more links to relevant wikipedia articles
 * tone is neutral