User talk:SiminZhao/sandbox

Evaluation Comment: Content This article helped explaining the origin of Global Meteoric waterline, displaying an empirical equation and briefly addressing the application for it. However, a few aspects can be considered to further build this article: 1. when refers to "hydrogen and oxygen isotopes", it did not refer to the specific isotope type for the two elements, which can be further linked to other Wikipedia articles. 2. the explanation of the theoretical bases for this topic- kinetic fractionation is jargonic for the public to understand. 3. the description about Craig's assertion needs to be paraphrased, and further explained in a non-specialist perspective. 4. the applications of this topic in environmental studies can be expanded. 5. images can be added to help explain the theoretical bases for hydrogen and oxygen isotopic fractionation and its applications. SiminZhao (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Article evaluation

Evaluating content:The content of this article is short. It explained the origin of this topic and displayed an empirical equation for it. However, a few issues need to be addressed to improve this article.

when refers to "hydrogen and oxygen isotopes", it did not refer to the specific isotope type for the two elements, which can be further linked to other Wikipedia articles. the explanation for the theoretical bases for this topic- kinetic fractionation is jargonic for the public to understand. the description about Craig's assertion needs to be paraphrased (it's a verbatim copy of one sentence from Craig's original paper's abstract), and further explained in a non-specialist perspective. the applications of this topic in environmental studies can be expanded images can be added to help vividly explain the theoretical bases for hydrogen and oxygen isotopic fractionation and its applications.

Evaluating tone: The tone of this article is neutral as it not biased to a certain aspect of view. Each subsection of this topic contains about only one sentence, so the content amount is even for each aspect and can be further expanded.

Evaluating sources: The source for the first citation does not work. The third citation does not support the claim in this article.

Evaluating talk page: There's not much editing and talk in the talk page.

Resources for building this article

Books:

1.     Ian Clark (2013). Environmental isotopes in hydrogeology. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC press. ISBN: 1482242915. https://books.google.com/books/about/Environmental_Isotopes_in_Hydrogeology.html?id=7UFZDwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description

2.      Zachary Sharp (2007): Principles of stable isotope geochemistry, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall. ISBN: 0130091391 https://books.google.com/books/about/Principles_of_Stable_Isotope_Geochemistr.html?id=AVjwAAAAMAAJ&source=kp_book_description

3.    Gunter Faure (2005): Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 3rd Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey. ISBN: 978-0-471-38437-3 https://books.google.com/books/about/Isotopes.html?id=tlMSAQAAIAAJ&source=kp_book_description

Journal papers:

4.      Gat, J. R. (1996). Oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in the hydrologic cycle. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 24(1), 225-262. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.24.1.225

5.      Kendall, C., & Coplen, T. B. (2001). Distribution of oxygen‐18 and deuterium in river waters across the United States. Hydrological processes, 15(7), 1363-1393. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.217

6.      Voelker, S. L., Brooks, J. R., Meinzer, F. C., Roden, J., Pazdur, A., Pawelczyk, S., ... & Šantrůček, J. (2014). Reconstructing relative humidity from plant δ18O and δD as deuterium deviations from the global meteoric water line. Ecological applications, 24(5), 960-975. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0988.1

7.      Tang, K., & Feng, X. (2001). The effect of soil hydrology on the oxygen and hydrogen isotopic compositions of plants’ source water. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 185(3-4), 355-367.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(00)00385-X

8.      Fricke, H. C., & O'Neil, J. R. (1999). The correlation between 18O/16O ratios of meteoric water and surface temperature: its use in investigating terrestrial climate change over geologic time. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 170(3), 181-196.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(99)00105-3

9.      Johnsen, S. J., Clausen, H. B., Dansgaard, W., Gundestrup, N. S., Hammer, C. U., Andersen, U., ... & Shoji, H. (1997). The δ18O record along the Greenland Ice Core Project deep ice core and the problem of possible Eemian climatic instability. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 102(C12), 26397-26410.

https://doi.org/10.1029/97JC00167

10.  Hays, P. D., & Grossman, E. L. (1991). Oxygen isotopes in meteoric calcite cements as indicators of continental paleoclimate. Geology, 19(5), 441-444.

https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1991)019<0441:OIIMCC>2.3.CO;2 SiminZhao (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Simin's Peer Review
Hi Simin! I've added my peer review down below, but if you have any questions for me about it or about something else I can clarify, feel free to ask!

1) A lead section that is easy to understand: The lead sentence is a good first sentence in terms of information. It tells me everything I would need to know about the Global Meteoric Water Line if I was using Wikipedia as a quick reference. The wording "between hydrogen and oxygen isotope- Oxygen-18 and Deuterium ratios" is a bit awkward, but I don't see an easy way to fix it. I hesitate to say that the introduction section as a whole is missing information because any information I would have included beyond what you say is immediately following the introduction in the 'Definition' section. The lead section is good in that it doesn't lean towards any specific part of the rest of the article, and there is no redundant information given.

2) A clear structure: The sections are organized well, and the flow between subjects is smooth. My only comment is that there is relatively little information in the 'Influencing Factors' section, and that information may be able to be included at the end of the 'Definitions' section instead (especially since the end of that section is already discussing fractionation).

3) Balanced coverage: Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. Any information not directly related to the global meteoric water line is necessary for clarification or further explanation on specific applications of the global meteoric water line. This is not a particularly perspective-heavy topic, so there are not really over-or underrepresented topics included. No conclusions are drawn in the article, and no arguments are made towards any conclusion, either (this is a good thing).

4) Neutral content: The article reads as completely neutral. All information expressed has direct ties to cited material, and no author perspective is detectable in the tone or wording of the article. All aspects of the global meteoric water line are given fair coverage.

5) Reliable sources: All information seems to come from reliable sources, be that books or journals. No one source seems to be bearing the brunt of the article, which is good. I can't access a few of the links that are behind paywalls, but they seem perfectly reasonable. No journal/book content seems to be misrepresented in the article.

Overall, the biggest comment I have is just to do a little extra proofreading (some spots could have better wording), but it's not too serious of an issue.

--Rwalter00 (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)