User talk:KumruKocaman/Black Sea

David Clark Peer Review - Biogeochemistry Section
Summary

In general, the biogeochemistry section is okay. You could expand the asteroid impact topic to include an explanation as to why hydrogen sulfide is released. You could also explain why high surface productivity produces anoxic waters at depth. However, it looks like there's a lot of potential here.

Lead Section

Not sure if you'd need one for a specific section, but if you end up adding subsections, a small lead paragraph might help to summarize what you're about to talk about.

Structure

As you add info, it may help to add sub-section titles to further categorize the different topics in the Biogeochemistry section, like the Archaeology, Asteroid, and Thunderstorm topics, but that depends mostly on the length it ends up being.

Balance of coverage

Coverage seems sporadic, mostly focused on specific applications of BGC cycles without talking about the processes that lead to these applications. However, I don't see any biases, like evidence that someone added their own paper.

Tone

The tone so far seems neutral. The only thing I can think of is the use of the word "excellent" when describing ancient shipwreck preservation. However, that might still be a neutral use of the word - I would talk to Dr. Glass about it.

Scientific Accuracy

Statements on asteroid impacts and thunderstorms seem scientifically accurate. While the archaeology part has no source, it seems accurate based on the Wikipedia pages of the ships

Sources

I wasn't able to access [54], but the website might either be under maintenance or maybe something else is going on. If it continues to not work, I'd recommend fixing the link or finding a different source. As you develop the section, you'll need to add a couple more sources and spread them evenly. It does look like [53] covers this topic (pg 328), so you may be able to use that one instead. The archaeology part has no source, but I don't know if you need it considering the ship pages are linked.

Completeness/Detail:

Right now, it generally feels incomplete. Fixes to other parts, and adding more info in general, will provide completeness and detail to the section.

Overall, I completely understand that it's hard to develop a section of a big article without treading into other sections' topics. Also, no worries if it's not perfect! Last time I did a Wikipedia project, I held myself back from adding enough info because I was afraid it wouldn't be perfect. Dclark57 (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)