User:KyleeGraham20/Assignment 1

Evaluating Other Articles:

• Carbon Cycle:
  • Content:
    • Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. There is good usage of headings and subheadings, breaking down the carbon cycle into its primary constituents like: the different carbon reservoirs, the fast versus the slow carbon cycle, and anthropogenic influences. Something that was distracting was mentioning the nitrogen and water cycle in the overview. Because this article focuses on carbon specifically, it was not necessary to mention other types of biogeochemical cycles as the article never touched back on that point. Another distracting item in the subsection titled "Atmosphere," there is a mentioning that tectonic movement would stop if the ocean dried up. This statement is not well explained in context considering tectonic plate activity (some dependence on the convective and plastic asthenosphere). In the subsection "terrestrial biosphere" there is information about soil respiration from 2008 but does not mention more recent soil respiration rates. This information was also missing a citation. Something that can be improved is giving a time parameter for the fast carbon cycle. The article states that it happens in years yet is nonspecific about how long that time is. The scientific information is clearly presented and accurate. Some values are approximated with one value being approximated without a citation reference (see "terrestrial biosphere" section). There is minimal jargon with many links to other Wikipedia article for further explanation. Some information that could be added is the Keeling Curve in the "Climate Change" subsection and discussing briefly how those measurements show an increase in carbon dioxide. Within that section information can be added briefly about projected changes in carbon dioxide levels in the future.
  • Tone:
    • The article seems mostly neutral. However, there is some negative language when discussing humans' impact on the climate. The language could be improved to appear unbiased when concerning a climate change discussion. One viewpoint underrepresented is the section "Virus as regulators." That section is singularly sourced.
  • Sources:
    • After checking a few citation links, the links do work. The sources also support the claims that the article is making and can often show readily through the title of the source. Some facts however are not sourced. One example is in the "Processes within slow carbon cycle section." The article describes the depth of the Earth's core and mantle without referencing where the data came from. The information within the article is coming from books, scientific journals, NOAA, and US Federal Departments. These sources are neutral and unbiased.
• Oxygen Cycle:
  • Content:
    • Everything within the article is relevant to the article topic, no information is out of date, and the information is clearly stated. Something that distracted me was the lack of information within the sections and the organization of the tables in the "Capacities and fluxes" section. Regarding the former more information could be given about the sources and sinks of oxygen for example. The biological pump and plate tectonics are given as sinks for oxygen, yet there is little elaboration on how they contribute the overall oxygen cycle. Regarding the latter, the article could have given more context to the tables to help users understand and digest the information. It could be helpful to place a diagram near these tables to visualize the gains and losses of oxygen and elaborate on how each part of the chart contributes to the oxygen cycle. The article has good usage of linked Wikipedia articles spread throughout. Overall, the article is good, however more information is needed to explain how oxygen interacts within the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere.
  • Tone:
    • The tone of the article is neutral. There however some viewpoints that are overrepresented. In the "Sources and Sinks" section, the article weighs heavily on biotic processes for oxygen development on earth versus abiotic factors. While the earth's oxygen increased due to the GOE, more coverage is needed on abiotic factors.
  • Sources:
    • After checking a few citation links, they work. Upon review, the sources do support the claims of the article. Once source is missing however to explain the volume of oxygen in the biosphere and lithosphere. The source material is coming from peer reviewed scientific journals. There is one source however that is from National Geographic News (an online website source). This is source is less credible because it is not peer reviewed and could be biased towards a particular interest or appeal. This bias is not noted.
  • Figure:
    • One figure is included for this article. This figure has a high resolution and is very clear. The figure shows clearly how oxygen is cycled on the earth. One suggestion for the figure is to add the most prominent oxygen forms that are in the atmosphere to the diagram. This was done for lithosphere, and it could be helpful to keep the same approach for the atmosphere as well. Another suggestion would be to use the figure as a guideline for the sections in the article.
• Calcium Cycle:
  • Content:
    • All information in this article is relevant and contributes to the overall understanding of the calcium cycle. The article flows well exhibiting where calcium minerals come from, how they enter waterways and react with water, and how calcium is transformed into calcium carbonate with the help of biomineralization. The article does not use a lot of jargon and is easy to understand for the common reader. One thing that was distracting was interrupted flow of information when the section "Changes in global climate and the calcium cycle" was explained before discussing how Ca concentrations have evolved. It could have been more helpful to mention the evolution of calcium, its usages, then mention how climate change has impacted calcium. No information is out of date and the article makes many references to other Wikipedia articles.
  • Tone:
    • The article remains neutral in expression. All sections are equally weighted. There are however stances (entire paragraphs) where there are no references cited; raising concern about if some of the information is biased.
  • Sources:
    • Upon reviewing a few sources, the links to work and direct the reader to open-source articles. The sources do work in tandem with the article and are used throughout the article to build credibility. However, not all facts are cited. Some paragraphs have little to no references raising the question of where the writer sourced the information. While the information appears factual, it is better reference whenever possible. The sources come from academic journals, books, and encyclopedias (primary, secondary and tertiary sources). The sources are neutral.