User talk:Zjli0415/sandbox

Sulfur Cycle Peer Review
1) A lead section that is easy to understand. The existing sulfur cycle page has an extensive lead section already, which covers the majority of relevant processes. The draft article lead mentions the importance of redox states, of which sulfur has many, which I think is good to specifically mention as this redox flexibility underlies many of the sulfur cycle processes. It might make sense to further expand on the different redox states as well, as the existing lead launches right into examples without an overview of the different possible states. A description of the complexities of sulfur’s redox state also [e.g. Processes in Microbial Ecology (Kirchman, 2011) Fig. 11.7] isn’t found elsewhere in the existing article.

2) A clear structure. Yes, this article is well structured. Each section stands on its own, and seems well written with the intent to fit in the flow of the existing article. The marine sulfur cycle section would likely fit well after the existing δ34S section, which explains the isotopic variations the draft article discusses related to various fluxes in and out of the ocean. The section on sulfur-oxidizing bacteria could then follow, providing a nice example of a biogeochemical system influencing the marine sulfur cycle. The section on mass independent isotope fractionation could fit well within the existing sulfur cycle evolution section.

3) Balanced coverage.  The length of the draft article includes coverage of several important aspects not mentioned in the existing article. The marine sulfur cycle section supplements the existing isotope section well by including well-cited quantities for the fluxes and isotopic variations measured in nature. This section could benefit from a little more discussion on which processes drive the changes in the δ34S values though, e.g. between riverine input value of +6% and overall input of +3%. It would also be helpful to either link out or provide a brief description of the mass-independent isotope fractionation, to improve clarity on the importance of sulfur in the discovery of the great oxidation event. Update: the MIF page is now linked (although that page doesn't also exactly have an in-depth coverage either of sulfur MIF...).

4) Neutral content.  This draft article is written from a neutral point of view, and statements are supported by refereed arcticles in high quality journals. A good balance betwee process specific and review papers from prominent authors are represented.

5) Reliable sources.  This article utilizes a broad spectrum of sources, including letters and review articles. Sources are all current, dating from the last 20 years or so. The sources are also well distributed within the article. There are no statements that appear to be lacking sources. However, the references have been manually inputted, and the article would benefit from the use of automatic, linked sources. Additionally, it would be good to link concepts in the draft article to other wikipedia pages. Update: these alterations to links and citations were made 28 March 2018.

Lawrenjk (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)