User talk:Windyor/sandbox

Lead Section
Good summary of the mercury cycle in a single sentence! There is a lot of information contained within this sentence, and it has been well-presented, achieving both goals of simplicity and succinctness. If it wasn’t already your intention, I would recommend using this sentence to replace the existing lead sentence but keep the existing second and third sentences in the lead section.

Also, you might consider replacing the word ‘anthropogenic’ with ‘man-made’ or a similar non-scientific definition. Alternatively, I would suggest linking to a definition of ‘anthropogenic’.

Structure
The overall structure follows well with the original structure, which was well considered, and I believe maintaining it as you have is a good idea. The challenge, however, is talking about natural sources of mercury first, because its short and to the point, without overshadowing it with a discussion on anthropogenic sources, which hasn’t yet occurred in this article. Would it be possible to rewrite the first sentence to say something along the lines of: “Mercury emissions from natural sources are an active source of scientific research” (if that statement is true). Alternatively, you could consider deleting this sentence entirely. If you decide to keep it, I would recommend replacing the word “known” with “understood” in the sentence “mercury emissions from natural sources are not understood as precisely as those from anthropogenic sources”, as a copy-editing suggestion.

If the sentence is maintained in any form, please consider adding a citation to support your statement.

There are a few additional copy-editing corrections which should be made to the text prior to final publication: To achieve verb agreement, the sentence should read “… and returned to the Earth’s surface by wet deposition”

Correct the spacing error in the sentence “Active volcanoes are one of the most significant…”

Balance of Coverage
The processes and natural sources sections are well written and informative. The Processes paragraph would make a good first paragraph for that section. Is it your intention to replace the existing paragraphs or add this one as the first one? There is some good information in the existing paragraphs which should be maintained in some form. If you are planning to add your paragraph as the first one (which I personally think would work very well) then I would recommend a transitional phrase for the subsequent paragraph, to tie the entire processes section together as a coherent section. It was stated that there were several routes for cycling, but only one route is discussed here. Could this be clarified? For the second paragraph of Natural Sources, the distinction between time-averaged global mercury emissions from volcanoes (700Mg/yr), and volcanic degassing (95Mg/yr), was not clear to me. Could this be reworded, or another sentence added, to make these differences more apparent?

In this case, I have assumed that you are completely replacing the existing two paragraphs. I believe this would work well in this case, but if this your intention, would it be possible to maintain the existing citations? The UN report is a good resource which should be easy to cite within your existing structure. The USGS ice core report may be more difficult to incorporate into your format, but I believe it adds useful context to the overall article, and should be maintained.

Neutral Content
The language and content are completely neutral, with no opinions or persuasive language stated or implied.

Reliable Sources
The sources are well considered and knowledgeable resources of information about the biogeochemical cycling of mercury, and all of the links are active. However, some of the sources are from the 90s. Would it be possible to include some more recent literature about anthropogenic sources of mercury? As a reader of this page, I would be curious to know if any recent research has been conducted to see the current status of anthropogenic mercury cycling.

Overall, these are great additions to this article. If some of my comments don’t make sense or you have more questions, please ping me on my talk page or ask me in class – I’m Erin. Great job! ScienceBuzz (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Biao's peer review
Wanbiao (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Lead section: This section is good for audience to grasp the important points that will be described in the main text. For example, this section points out natural and anthropogenic processes. However, a minor revision needed is that this sentence is too long to follow. Could you please divide it into two short sentences?

Article structure: Main text has a clear structure and divides into two sections (Processes and Natural sources). It is easy for audience to understand and follow.

Article balance: Two sections look equal in the length. This is very good. However, you should add more contents about mercury cycle in the section of Processes. Additionally, the section of Natural sources is not mentioned in the lead section. Is this section necessary for your article? or you can give a sentence to explain why this section should be added in your article. You mentioned the effect of anthropogenic processes on the mercury cycling, but you did not describe anything about this point. I think it is necessary to add one sentence or one paragraph about the effect of anthropogenic processes in the section of Processes.

Article neutral content: This article is written in natural tone and rephrased based on the published articles.

Reliability and relevance: This article’s points come from the famous peer-review journals such as Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics and Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. The main text is also relevance to the opinions of cited papers.

Comments on Erin and Biao's reviews
First of all, thank you to both of you for a very nice reviews! Erin, I edited some of the sentences as you suggested under the structure section, and I merged some of the original contents in the Mercury cycle wikipedia page and kept some of the sources already on the page, including the UN report. Biao, I was able to have some information about anthropogenic processes in the "Processes" section, through the merging process of my paragraph into the original paragraph (that was already on the mercury page). Again, thank you to both of you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windyor (talk • contribs) 02:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)