User talk:Compost Camel/sandbox

Peer Review
1) Lead: The lead sentence clearly states what is about to be discussed. Could re-order the 'spheres' to which one occurs first in the article for further organization. 2) Structure: The headings give the article good overall organization, and I believe the order of the subsections flow well. 3) Coverage: The lithosphere and biosphere are discussed more heavily than the hydrosphere and atmosphere - maybe more can be said about the hydrosphere since it is the largest reservoir, but the atmosphere does have a smaller role in the potassium cycle so its length makes sense. Human impact is also discussed, but focuses mostly on fertilizing - maybe add more about the actual 'impact' of this mining/fertilizing. 4) Neutral: The overall tone of the paper is neutral and the author avoids opinions, etc. 5) Sources are linked properly and they are from recognized scientific journals. Sources are used appropriately to support the claims and numbers within the article. 6) Figure: Overall, figure is pleasing to look at and easy to read and the units are listed in the figure caption. The caption does a good job of describing what is taking place in the figure. The lithosphere and hydrosphere have quantities next to them, but the atmosphere does not (maybe there's no info on this). I like that the arrows' thickness correspond to the flux! Sources are properly cited in the caption. 7) Format/Presentation: Overall the article is well organized and is presented well (only note is the change of order to the lead sentence). 8) Completeness/Quality: Overall, the article provides a good overview of the potassium cycle and covers all of the 'spheres' as well as human impact (although more 'impact' could be mentioned. My only grammatical suggestions is that some of the sentences seem short/choppy and could be combined/expanded for an easier read. Informing article and awesome figure! Embrownie (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)