User:Wikiedits1996/sandbox

Carbon cycle
Overall, the content is relevant to the topic of the carbon cycle. For most topics, the article does link to relevant Wikipedia articles when needed; the links that were checked did link to articles that provide the correct context. In general, the article is comprehensible to a layperson without an advanced scientific background; however, jargon is occasionally used. For example, the article fails to explicitly define the term “halocarbon” within the article. All figures are relevant to the section in which they are presented and are sufficiently organized and comprehensible to a layperson. However, the figure at the top of the article (the one about the “fast carbon cycle”) does have some sections where the font is difficult to understand. In addition, its caption starts out by mentioning the “Fast carbon cycle,” even though this term is not mentioned until later in the article.

The tone of the article, in general, does appear to be biased towards the position that activity by humans is substantially damaging the planet through its effect on the carbon cycle. The article frequently uses an active tense, rather than a passive tense, while describing the effects of humans on the carbon cycle. In general, the sections/parts of sections of the article not dealing with such matters are written in a neutral tone.

The entire first paragraph of the article does not link to any citations; each paragraph should normally have a minimum of one citation. A few sentences, such as the one describing the pH of the ocean, also do not link to any citations. The citations that were checked are listed as [1], [18], and [22] in the carbon cycle article. Citation [1] links to a page about the Carbon Cycle on the NASA website. This is generally considered a reliable source; however, there is a blue banner at the top of the website stating that the page is out of date. Citations linking to the source are supported by it. Citation [18] is a peer-reviewed journal article; this source supports the sentences citing it as well. Source [22] is a book published by Cambridge University Press. The sentence citing it is also backed up by this source.

Mercury cycle
Overall, the content of the article on the mercury cycle is relevant to the subject of the article, does not contain excessive jargon, and is generally comprehensible to a reader without advanced scientific training. The article contains two figures; the first, a general depiction of the mercury cycle, is detailed, easy to read, and relatively comprehensive; the second, of cinnabar, is relevant to the section it is placed in. However, the article is relatively short, and several sections and subsections could be elaborated upon. For example, a figure depicting the difference between primary and secondary sources of mercury would have been quite useful for a layperson. The sections on primary sources and secondary sources could also have been elaborated upon, with more detailed descriptions and statistics on the relative amounts of mercury from each primary or secondary source. The article could also have been improved by adding a subsection on bioaccumulation of mercury.

The tone of the article is neutral throughout, and the article is generally balanced.

Citations [2], [3], and [20] were checked. Source [2] is a literature review published in a reputable journal, and the source does back up the sentence citing it. However, the sentence citing it has phrases that closely resemble the phrases in the source; this close paraphrasing should be edited out. Source [3] is a study from a peer-reviewed journal article. Information for which this source is cited is supported by this source. However, as with source [2], close paraphrasing with respect to source [3] is used. Source [20] is another study from a reputable, peer-reviewed journal; the sentence citing this source is supported.

Selenium cycle
Overall, the article on the selenium cycle is relevant to the topic. While the article does not use excessive jargon, the way it is written might make it a bit difficult for a layperson to comprehend. The first figure is well-organized and easy to follow; however, the caption could include explicit definitions for the abbreviations DMSe and DMDSe. This article, like the article on the mercury cycle, is relatively short, and does not provide a sufficiently comprehensive description of the Selenium cycle. One possible addition to this article is a section on anthropogenic aspects of the cycle; another is a section on Terrestrial ecosystems.

The article is written in a neutral tone, and is balanced when presenting information.

The first two paragraphs do not cite any sources. The first sentence says that the selenium cycle resembles several other biogeochemical cycles, without any elaboration or justification for this alleged resemblance. Citations [1], [3], and [4] were checked. Citation [1] was a peer-reviewed journal article, and was only used for the figure and figure caption. The caption was copied verbatim from the source, indicating plagiarism. Source [3] was a technical report from a reputable organization (US Department of the Interior). While the source did support the material citing it, the author of the selenium cycle article plagiarized from this source, either by copying the phrases verbatim or closely paraphrasing them. The entire section on immobilization is largely copied from source [3] as well; it should be noted that, though plagiarism has been committed regardless, there is no citation present in this paragraph. The entire mobilization section is also largely copied from source [3]; however, the citation is placed after the second sentence, implying, incorrectly, that the subsequent sentences came from source [4], which is cited at the end of the mobilization section. Source [4] is a peer-reviewed journal article. While this source does contain text that supports some points made in the section, it is clear that the entire section, including the sentence just before the citation for source [4], is either copied from or closely paraphrased from source [3]. It is possible that source [4] was simply added to satisfy a requirement for a minimum number of references.