User talk:Lilysandler/sandbox

Roth's Peer Review
This review is for the Calcium Cycle Wikipedia Page Edit Draft by Lily Sandler with the aim of providing constructive feedback to improve it. This review assignment requests and is divided into five separate sections that include one paragraph each. These paragraphs are outlined below. I've reviewed the section in the Sandbox titled "With Dr. Glass's Edits." I also looked at the current Calcium Cycle page for a reference.

1) Lead Section: Concerning the Lead Section references, this new lead section is excellently cited compared to the current Wikipedia entry. Great job! I found a couple of things that might help references 5 and 6. Reference 5 links to a book about Calcium in humans, perhaps this could be replaced with a review article on Biological Calcium Use that is more general biologically and more easily accessible. We could also link this sentence to the Wikipedia page for "Calcium in biology." Reference 6 links to a corrigendum to figure 11 of the original article. Perhaps we should fix this to link to the original instead.

Concerning the Lead Section content, I think it is a good summary of the page content and it reflects the most important points of the article evenly, but I had a few thoughts/questions as I read it. Many Wikipedia elemental cycle pages start with the spheres of Earth that the element cycles through. Does calcium travel through the atmosphere or only the pedosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere? The second sentence mentions the flow of calcium ions into waterways. Does calcium travel from water back to land? After reading this, I have a good idea about where calcium is, and it makes me want to read more about it in the rest of the article which is great, but I am not clear on the path or flow of the cycle. I think a non-science reader might get the idea that the flow of calcium is unidirectional rather than cyclical. Perhaps we could link the sentences together or add a sentence to the end that makes it feel more like a cycle? Lastly, it looks like there is a small typo in sentence four that ends with reference 5. "such as production bones and teeth" looks like it should read, "such as the production of bones and teeth."

2) Clear Structure: I am not completely certain which portion(s) of the current Wikipedia article will be updated with this sandbox draft. It looks like it will replace sections 1 and 2 of the current Wikipedia page. I like the structure of the draft text compared to the current text. When reading about Calcium weathering and inputs to seawater, I found myself wondering where the calcium carbonate or other calcium-containing rocks come from and where they are found. Perhaps we could include a sentence to discuss this? Or maybe another section that explains this could be positioned first?

3) Balanced Coverage: The draft text seems well balanced to me. I consider all sections and content to be necessary and on topic. I am only briefly familiar with calcium cycle. Based on what little I know, the draft text appears to represent the published literature. Searching for calcium biogeochemistry or the calcium cycle on NCBI’s PubMed yields primarily research concerning calcium’s role in biological processes. Judging by a quick scan, I didn't notice any significant viewpoints that were left out or missing. I did not feel that the article drew conclusions or tried to convince me of anything.

4) Neutral Content: The perspective of the author is neutral. I did not find any phrases that indicated otherwise. Everything was consistently on-topic and seems to reflect our current scientific understanding of the subject. However, I am not aware of any juicy debates between calcium cycle scientists. I did not notice any negative or positive phrases. The information is stated very matter of factly. I believe this draft to be a clear reflection of various aspects of the topic.

5) Reliable Sources: The sources are all reliable academic textbooks or peer-reviewed articles. Reference 7 currently does not link to the article or have DOI number. Here is the link: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-6142(08)62689-3. The same for Reference 8: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0248(76)90240-2. Nearly all statements in this article have a reference at the end of the sentence. If not the same sentence, they look to be covered by the reference in the sentence before or after. No references are from blogs or self-published authors. Some sources are reused multiple times, but there are also plenty of other sources included throughout the text. I think all statements are represented accurately by the sources.

One last comment is that I think there are many words in the draft text that can be linked to other Wikipedia pages such coccolithophores, exoskeletons, ocean acidification ect.

Rotheconrad (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)