User talk:Egarcia72/sandbox

Shaivan's Peer Review

1. Lead section: It is concise and precise as a lead section should be.

2. Structure: It is well structured but more subgroups can be made if more details can be given in the article (explained in next point).

3. Balance of Coverage: The article as of now talks about arsenic toxicity and anthropogenic influence. Maybe another section explaining the mechanisms of Arsenic transport, cycling, source, and sinks would greatly benefit the article. All of this has already been shown in the figure. I think a paragraph explaining about it should suffice.

4. Neutral content: Article is well written and there are no biased opinions stated in the text.

5. Scientific accuracy: All statements made are neutral and references have been given wherever necessary.

6. Citations: References are given in full with DOI.

7. Figure: Absolutely loved the figure!! It is simplistic and very easy to understand. It is self-explanatory. It contains values of all the fluxes and reservoir sizes. All the mechanisms are clearly mentioned. Colours are appropriately used. The reservoir boxes are very clear and beautifully done! It is scientifically accurate; Appropriate units have been used. Excellent figure!!!

8. Figure Caption: Concise and accurate.

Shaivan.HS (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)