User talk:Rotheconrad/sandbox

User talk:Rotheconrad/sandbox

Rotheconrad's Peer Review
For the lead section, the article give a great instruction on the global oxygen cycle, important information was included, necessary explanation was provided. This lead section summarizes the definition and importance of oxygen cycle as well as the abiotic and biotic processes of oxygen cycle pretty well, but I think it may be a bit too long. I think the first half of it, describing the definition and importance, can be more brief. Moving some detail to sections below or new sections would be good.

For the structure, the dividing of sections is clear and it is easy to find different subtopics thanks to the nice order. Here are my suggestions: In the lead section, this article mentioned the oxygen cycle in geological history, but there is only a modern cycle section. Adding another section about the oxygen cycle in the past would be more consistent with the lead section, even it is quite brief. Besides, I would also consider adding sections for other reservoirs, such as the biosphere and geological reservoir.

As I mentioned before, the leading section is a bit too long, making it the longest part in this particle, which is not well balanced. Since the article is not fully completed, here is a kindly reminder, it would be good that the biotic parts is longer than the abiotic ones.

The content is neutral, without bias and I can tell that the author has a neutral perspective. The statement that biotic processes account for more oxygen flux is supported by the references.

For the reliability, all the references are peer reviewed articles and published academic books. The references text are in good form and the sources are accessible.

Pengxiao Xu (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)