User talk:Tplattner24/sandbox

Tplattner24's Peer Review
Lead section: In the lead section, it gives clear and important information about the sulfate reduction pathway both by biological mechanism and inorganic reaction. However, the lead sentence might make little confusion because the dissimilatory sulfate reduction pathway only refers to biological sulfate reduction, through which microorganisms can obtain energy. Therefore, it could be more clear if the lead sentence separates "the dissimilatory sulfate reduction" from the thermochemical sulfate reduction.

Clear structure: I think the second graph which illustrates what the main product of sulfate reduction both chemically and biologically should come in the first paragraph. What the main products and reactants of the sulfate reduction are gives a more fundamental term explanation about the sulfate reduction than the two different temperature regimes of sulfate reduction. The content of the two temperature regimes is more specific information than the products and reactants of the sulfate reduction.

Balanced Coverage: The content written by Tplattner24 is definitely more balanced and clear than the sulfur cycle's wiki page. The one thing I could comment on here is that it would be good to read about how much each the TSR and BSR contributes to the global sulfur cycle. And the content could be improved by adding one part regarding archaeal sulfate reduction. It would be useful to refer to the wiki page Sulfate-reducing microorganisms and Dissimilatory sulfate reduction.

Neutral contents: The main content does not attempt to persuade the reader to a specific point of view. I don't think I could guess any perspective of the author when I read the article and recognize any words, phrases, and groups that don't feel neutral.

Reliable sources: Overall, the author utilized reliable references. All references the author used are peer-reviewed journal paper. References are not blog or self-published authors's writing. Especially, the authors include not only the well-received literature in terms of the temperature but also some examples of exceptions.Doyo1204 (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Taylor's Peer Review
Lead section: The lead section is a good topic sentence. It tells the reader exactly what the article will talk about.

Structure: The structure is straightforward and I like how the text is separated into sections according to flux. It flows nicely and it is very neat. There is no extra or repetitive content.

Coverage: The coverage is balanced, with equal amounts of text explaining the three different sources of boron fluxes.

Content: The content seems scientifically accurate. I think it was nice that detail was added about the fluxes and sources, like which fluxes were the largest. The content is unbiased and neutral. It might be nice to talk about the Boron reservoirs as well.

Sources: The sources are reliable. The format of the sources is correct.

Figure: Some of the text on the figure is a little small. Also, some of the arrows don't seem to be pointing to anything, are they going into the atmosphere? The figure caption is good and detailed. There are units provided.

Carrieli822 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Carrieli822