User:Shannonsalter/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Hydrogen Cycle: The article first gives a good brief overview of Hydrogen and what the focus of this article will be on. It sets up by the article nicely to further discuss the different forms of the hydrogen cycle(biotic and abiotic). The article follows a logical order of the hydrogen cycle by first discussing its sources and how it's produced and ultimately consumed or escape. The information was easily understood with a plethora of links that worked. Improvements for this article could be defining more words such as photooxidation that I felt could be defined in the article rather than having to use context clues. They are some sections such as astrobiology that fails to mention key details such as the Big Bang's role in the production of hydrogen, another is the lack of the climate changes associated with hydrogen in the creation of greenhouse gases. A vital element that is missing is a visual representation that would help to better digest the material laid out in text. Another is the role that hydrogen plays in the cycle of other elements. This article was neutral in the delivery of information. There were some sections that I felt could be represented more such as astrobiology. The citations links work with the sources supporting the claims that are made in this article these articles referenced have been cited many times by others and are in well-known scientific journals. Each fact references back to the citation page and I didn't notice any biased statements without a reference.

Oxygen Cycle : The article has relevant information on the oxygen cycle and it does a good job of breaking down the important parts of the cycle such as sinks, sources, and where and how it's formed. There were points within sections that I felt could have been more detailed in case the reader more info example being the mention of organizations that site-specific percentages of oxygen content. I'm not sure that this should have been added without more information The scientific information is easily understood and if not they are numerous article links that explain them which are from notable journals with many citations. This article is neutral in its tone, I didn't notice ny biased information everything was factual and cited especially if there was data involved. I don't feel that they were any underrepresented or overrepresented points in this article. The tables for the data on the individual reservoirs should be with the section on reservoirs just to make it all more concise rather than all over the place. The citations links work with the sources supporting the claims that are made in this article these articles referenced have been cited many times by others and are in well-known scientific journals. Most facts reference back to the citation page one claim made was bias but the article explicitly stated that they were claims and not facts but saying that "specific organizations use this data". The figure provided is very colorful and well organized and easily read when zoomed in. It has arrows of various sizes depicting input and output of sources needed in the cycle there isn't a legend but the reservoir and flux sizes are given next to the arrows. The figure also has different examples of terrestrial and marine sources of oxygen along with including the average numerical value, and a good detailed description of the figure.

Mercury Cycle: The article's content gave a brief overview of the Mercury cycle. The information in this article is relevant to the topic and not at all off-topic it discussed the sources, processes, and reservoirs but not in much detail. There are places that could have more information such as an elaboration on the sources of the cycle, discuss the reservoirs, and how much they are growing each year since it mentioned anthropogenic input. Another missing point is a figure detailing the cycle. This figure would be a great aid in visualizing where these sources can be found, fluxes, and reservoirs, etc to better digest the material laid out in the text. I noticed that the other wiki articles on other cycles had more than just two sections of information I'm not sure if this person couldn't find more information but they could have broken down important sections such as sources into abiotic and biotic and further expand on the cycle and include graphics. There numerous wiki links in the article and the scientific information aren't unclear or inaccurate. This article does take a neutral tone without making any claims that aren't biased toward any certain position. The only viewpoints I believe that are underrepresented would be the difference in the abiotic and biotic parts of the cycle and also how this cycle impacts other cycles. The citation links work with the sources supporting the claims that are made in this article, but they are a few citation information that isn't explicitly in the article. Each fact references back to the citation page which comes from reliable journals such as PubMed and ScienceDirect.