User talk:ScienceBuzz/sandbox

Peer Review Overall a very comprehensive figure, well researched and clear. Scientific accuracy: The fluxes are well labeled and I like how it flows. The silicate rock is unclear as to how it actually plays into the cycle. Additionally, a flux value for burial or the form in which it is buried would be aid clarity. Presentation/neatness: The riverine inputs is a bit awkward, consider changing the angle to be consistent with the other inputs and whatnot, and including the "reverse weathering" in it somehow. The transition between the estuaries and oceans is slightly unclear, consider using color or another divider to further outline the difference. Completeness: The figure very well covers the cycle, and the caption has good explanation. I would consider using color or additional artwork to clarify different aspects of the cycle. If the sky area is not being used, it could lend more space to explaining/ enhancing the figure. Again, it would be nice to see how silicate rocks are involved in the whole cycle. Caption: The caption is good and fairly detailed. It might be helpful to expand on where other values are coming from, or talk about weathering and burial some more maybe. Reliability: Consider citing where values are coming from within the caption, as opposed to at the end. That way more explanation can be clearly incorporated into the caption. --M maraviglia (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)