User talk:JPOZ59/Biotic pump

Emmy Hughes Peer Review
1)	Lead Section

This sentence in the first paragraph: “This could explain the role forests play in the water cycle, trees take up water from the soil and microscopic and microscopic pores on the leaves release unused water as vapor into the air, this process is known as evapotranspiration” in the lead section should read: “This could explain the role forests play in the water cycle: Trees take up water from the soil and microscopic pores on the leaves release unused water as vapor into the air. This process is known as evapotranspiration.” I would also rewrite the section after this to be clearer.

I also think this introductory paragraph might be slightly redundant; I’d consider cutting down a little bit, particularly the line “this could further explain the role forests play in the water cycle” in the fourth sentence which you already say in the beginning.

Second paragraph: What is the “previous hypothesis”? What is “angiosperm evolution”? If these are too difficult to explain in a short amount of space perhaps they can be mentioned first lower down. I’m also not sure about the line “we can gain”, I might change that to something like: “The biotic pump hypothesis may help explain angiosperm evolution, as well as the correlation between ecology and the interior watering of the continents.” I didn’t see angiosperm evolution mentioned anywhere else in the article; I’d consider either removing it or elucidating it further.

Otherwise, I believe the lead section does make clear the importance of the article. I think a little editing could make it even clearer.

2)	Clear Structure

In the “Development of the Theory” section you have a combination of scientific evolution of the theory and critical reception. Perhaps I would make this into two sections? One that is “Development of the Theory” and one that is “Initial Reception”, or “Scientific Reception” where you can focus on how the scientific community has met the theory over time.

I wonder if it might be worth putting the “How the biotic pump drives hydrological processes” section immediately after the theory section, so we get information about the mechanism of the pump early on. I’d understand not making this change though as it’s useful to have a sense of the scientific reception going into the article.

Otherwise I think it’s well-organized! I like the way you end on the general connections to climate and some anthropogenic attempts to take advantage of the mechanism.

3)	Balanced Coverage

In the “Development of the Theory” section, what happened after the theory was initially criticized? How and when did it receive mainstream acceptance, if it has? Also in this section, the first paragraph is not immediately obviously relevant. I would begin with a clearer topic sentence, or describe immediately how this information ties in.

I am glad you include the scientific reception to the theory. I think you need to make clear what the “other hypothesis” you mentioned in the first paragraph is. You allude generally to other theories, could you elucidate them further? I think doing this will help to balance out the coverage well.

I think all sections are necessary to this article.

4)	Neutral Content

The second sentence in the second paragraph in the article: “The biotic pump hypothesis demonstrates how our fragile rainforests are even more important than previously thought and is very susceptible to anthropogenic factors (ie. deforestation).” reads a bit biased. I think the line “even more important than previously thought” should change; the rest makes sense—though I’d still like that relationship drawn clearly. What about the biotic pump makes forests more susceptible to anthropogenic forcings? As I note below, it might be good to either specify the scientists or not reference the groups who came up with one hypothesis versus another. I don’t think the article focuses too much on the negative or positive! Generally I think it is very well-balanced, other than perhaps describing the alternative theories in more detail.

5)	Reliable Sources

Source 5 needs a fix related to the title.

Source 18 is a YouTube video and I’m not sure is appropriate for this article.

Otherwise the sources look like scientific articles and are appropriate for this article! I do think it would be good to put many more Wikilinks in this article, particularly in the first few sections.

6)	General Fixes

For this sentence in the paragraph under “Concept”: “Before the biotic pump concept was thought of, trees were thought to have a passive role in the water cycle.” I would remove or change “was thought of” and combine it with the next sentence. Generally I would avoid talking about the people who came up with each hypothesis and focus on just the hypotheses themselves unless you are directly referring to the authors and they are particularly relevant, such as in your “Development of the Theory” section.

You have an extra tab underneath the first paragraph in the “Development of the Theory” section. In the last section of the “Development of the Theory” section, the line: “For example, why rainforests such as the Amazon and Congo are able to maintain high rainfall while other unforested biomes decrease in rainfall, as you get further inland.” is not a complete sentence.

Also—is the biotic pump a theory or a hypothesis?

In the “How the biotic pump drives hydrological processes” section, there is a loose sentence: “The hydrological dynamics that the biotic pump drives.” Also in this section, can you explain in the point by point description how the biotic pump influences winds?

In the “Connection with hydrological cycle and climate moderation” section, does “Of the estimated six trillion trees on the planet, roughly three trillion remain” mean there were once six trillion trees? When did we lose three trillion?

Also in this section, the last sentence seems incomplete or is missing an introduction to a quote.

Ebhughes20 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)