User talk:Carrieli822/sandbox

Carrie's Peer Review
Lead section: The lead by itself reflects the importance of the topic and describes clearly what the rest of the article will be about. I would also include the biosphere in the lead sentence because the Copper cycle also has input from terrestrial and agricultural biomass.

Structure: Each section is organized well and is straightforward. However, I would suggest having an overall heading for fluxes and then have separate subheadings for natural and anthropogenic fluxes.

Coverage: Each section's length is equal to its importance. Nothing that I read was off-topic or unnecessary. The article reflects the perspectives represented in the literature, but one thing that is left out is the stock of copper in the universe which is talked about in the main paper that is referenced. I think that would be really cool to add and interesting to readers. I know this is hard to add to the figure, but that would be a cool addition the way you already have your figure. No, the article doesn't draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view.

Content: The content is neutral, so I couldn't guess what the perspective of the author is by just reading the article. There isn't too much negative or positive information because the text is written in an objective way.

Sources: The article is connected to 2 reliable sources (journal articles). The article leans more towards the "Earth's anthrobiogeochemical copper cycle" article since it's cited more. So, you may want to cite more from the other article so that both are referenced and it doesn't lean towards one article. The statements in the article are cited and are found in the references.

Figure: I really like the figure - it's super creative! I think it's very easy to understand and it's clear to follow, while also being very detailed and accurately representing the Copper Cycle. The placement of the figure fits perfectly in your article, so it looks really organized.

Suggestions - I would make it slightly larger, so one could read it more clearly before people click on it. The core reservoir is hard to read because of the font color, you may try white font for that one instead. My main comment/question is is there supposed to be a flux line from the micrometeorites to Earth? I know it has a reservoir size, but I didn't know if there was a flux value for it. Also, I would make the anthropogenic fluxes in red, so you can easily tell the difference between natural and anthropogenic fluxes. Since your caption says in bold "The biogeochemical cycle of copper with anthropogenic sources" then I think you should make the anthropogenic fluxes stand out more. The figure is also of natural fluxes, so you could put that in the bold part as well.

Additionally, I would write the following in the figure caption like this instead (bold are the changes): Reservoirs are labeled with sizes in μg/g inside parentheses. On Earth, the largest copper reservoirs are metal use (production, fabrication, use, discard), the core, and the crust. The fluxes between reservoirs are shown with arrows, with units of Gg C/yr. I don't think you need to write out the units.

Overall, great work!!

Tplattner24 (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)tplattner24