User:Seeyalea/sandbox

Assignment 1 - Evaluate Other Articles

Iron Cycle

Evaluating Content

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes, everything seems to be relevant to the iron cycle and even mentions other biogeochemical cycles that are closely associated or interact with the iron cycle. This article has good content to expand on for further details that could be added in the future.
• Is there anything that distracted you? Nothing immediately seems to be distracting when reading the article. However, there are a few technical terms or sentences that may be difficult for the general readers to understand. For example, terms such as "bioavailable", "organic/inorganic", "anoxic photosynthesis" and "particulates" may hinder the readers understanding (although, maybe not to a great degree) without further explanation of what these terms mean or what they are. Additionally, some sentences seem redundant. For example: "The largest supply of iron to the oceans is from rivers, where it is suspended as sediment particles. Coastal waters receive inputs of iron from rivers and anoxic sediments." These two sentences practically say the same information, with the latter sentence providing additional information that iron inputs also come from anoxic sediments. I would merge these two sentences to clean up the flow of the text.
• Is any information out of date? No information seemed to be out of date or recently proven false. However, seeing that the youngest source was from 2018, most likely there are more recent studies that could have been published and can provide additional or new vital information about the article's topic. I would recommend looking into recent studies or review articles that can address this.
• Is anything missing that could be added? The following is information I believe should be added to the article:
  1. Ancient earth:
     • Could add the period when the Earth's atmospheric levels were 0.001%.
     • Maybe a geological timescale diagram, highlighting the important events of the iron exchange.
  2. Terrestrial ecosystems:
     • Other transports of iron (microbial activity, weathering of ancient mineral deposits, etc.)
     • Major iron sinks (mineral deposition, microbial activity, freshwater sedimentation, organic complexing, etc.)
     • Include a figure for illustration of these processes.
  3. Oceanic ecosystem:
     • Could include information on the sedimentation and burial of iron particulates, and how these processes remove iron from the ecosystem.
     • Include a figure of the abiotic cycling of iron in oceanic ecosystems.
  4. Interactions with other elemental cycles:
     • Could include interactions and the influence of iron on the carbon cycle.
     • Since there is an existing figure with a focus on iron ligands, they should also include an explanation of what that is.
     • Include figures of iron cycle interactions with other elemental cycles.
  5. Anthropogenic influences:
     • Include global environmental impacts of these influences.
     • Can provide a case study of how these influences are tied to the impacts.
• What else could be improved? Personally, I think the section on Ancient Earth is not needed to understand the modern characteristics of the iron cycle and can be a whole article on its own. Also, the information in each section could be compartmentalized into subsections for further clarity. The figures in the "Interactions with other elemental cycles" should be replaced or moved into the "Oceanic ecosystems" section, since this doesn't explicitly illustrate any interactions with other cycles. The "Terrestrail ecosystems" section should also include a figure for further clarity of the information as well. Overall, the text seems somewhat unorganized and should be rearranged for less confusion.
• Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon? Yes, the information is accurate, however, as previously stated the text should be rearranged for a more clear presentation of the information. The text does contain some jargon, the author used some technical terms that could be challenging for non-specialized readers as stated previously.
• Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics? Yes, all of the interlinkes are related to the article's topic.

Evaluating Tone

• Is the article neutral? Yes, the article appears to be neutral and presents all information objectively with no obvious bias towards any particular subtopic.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No information or section appeared to be heavily biased, although the "Anthropogenic influences" section can easily be written from a biased perspective. However, since the information was presented objectively and is somewhat short, it leaves little room for any biased writing.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The "Anthropogenic influences" seem underrepresented and should expand on the environmental impacts and emerging research on this subject.

Evaluating Sources

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Yes, I've tried several of the citation links (even ones from 1964 and 1988) and they all worked, each leading me to a peer-reviewed article.
• Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes, each peer-reviewed article that I investigated (~10/36 of them) from the citations supports the claims of the referenced statement in the text.
• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Yes, these references are reliable since they were sourced from scientific journals, such as Geomicrobiology Journal, Biogeosciences, and Environmental Chemistry. However, I've been told the policy on Wiki references is that the references should be secondary and/or tertiary, and noticed a handful of the references were primary references. Therefore, I don't believe some of these references were appropriate for this Wiki article.
• Where does the information come from? As previously stated, these references are from peer-reviewed science journals.
• Are these neutral sources? Yes, they should be since these referenced articles are peer-reviewed.
• If biased, is that bias noted? No bias was noted in the Wiki article nor did there appear to be any in the writing.

Evaluating Figure

• Finally, take a careful look at the figure(s) in the article. Is it high quality? The first and last figures (the last being in the "Interactions with other element cycles" section) look of high quality. The figure in the "Ancient earth" section is too small to be a clear illustration. The figure in the "Interactions with other elemental cycles" section is close to being of high quality but lacks clarity to the section's information.
• Does it capture the details of the cycle? Yes, most of them seemed detailed to the referred cycle, however, one of them lacks relevance as previously mentioned.
• Is there anything about it you recommend changing? I would replace the figure in the "Interactions with other elemental cycles" with another that is more explicit on the iron cycle interactions with other biogeochemical cycles.

Hydrogen Cycle

Evaluating Content

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes, all of the content seems to be relevant to the hydrogen cycle. Although, the "Implications for astrobiology" section is somewhat tertiary and could be an article on its own. Like the iron cycle article, it has a good amount of information to expand on.
• Is there anything that distracted you? What distracted me the most was how often sentences shift abruptly in focus due to the amount of information that was tightly fitted into small bodies of text. Also, the text uses terms that might be too technical for the general reader that were not explained in definition or hyperlinked (photochemical oxidation, photooxidation, exothermic, etc.).
• Is any information out of date? The existing information doesn't seem to be out of date, however, like the iron cycle, sources are being used no later than 2017. Searching for newer sources is highly recommended, especially if the "Implications for astrobiology" section is going to be a permanent component of the article (a rapidly evolving field).
• Is anything missing that could be added? ... a lot is missing from this article. In particular, detailed information describing each of the mechanisms and statements further. Furthermore, the author(s) could have added the roles of the hydrogen cycle in the Greenhouse Effect, global feedback loops, and its interactions with other elemental and compound cycles (e.g. carbon & methane cycle).
• What else could be improved? I believe most mechanisms presented could be elaborated further. For example, the article mentions hydrogen production from the photooxidation of siderite but doesn't explain how this mechanism works. None of the hyperlinks associated with the statement provide further detail on this reaction. I would also include sequences of the hydrogen cycle in marine settings as well.
• Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon? The information presented is accurate but should be improved for further clarification using some of the previous suggestions I made. There is a good amount of jargon in the article as well. Specifically, a few of the technical terms that were previously mentioned may not have been necessary and can be replaced with simpler terms.
• Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics? There are a few links in the article that seem tangent, but relevant. For example, "siderite" and "domains of life" are relevant to the hydrogen cycle in their contextual description, but their corresponding articles do not mention the involvement of hydrogen.

Evaluating Tone

• Is the article neutral? Yes, the article has a neutral tone and doesn't appear to have any biased emphasis on any subtopic (but is erratic).
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No information in the article uses any biased language or emphasizes a subject non-objectively.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The "Relevance for the global climate" section is heavily underrepresented. This section can easily be expanded on since the only cited source in this section is from 1999, which surely has been further researched. Also, there is only one sentence in this section...

Evaluating Sources

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Yes, I tried several of the cited links and they work.
• Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes, most of the cited sources focus on and support the statements they are associated with.
• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Yes, they are reliable and most come from reputable science journals since they all contain DOI addresses. However, like the iron cycle, the article uses primary sources, which questions if they are appropriate or not.
• Where does the information come from? The sources come from several peer-reviewed science journals, including Nature, Geochemica et Cosmochimica, and Science.
• Are these neutral sources? I've noticed some sources were from specialized journals like the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy so there could potentially be some bias within that organization.
• If biased, is that bias noted? No bias was noted by the author.

Evaluating Figure

• Finally, take a careful look at the figure(s) in the article. Is it high quality? There is only one figure in the article. I would say it is not of high quality in Wikipedia standards due to the image being too small.
• Does it capture the details of the cycle? Mostly. The figure captures the detailed descriptions of the major geophysical processes but is not explicit about the involvement of the hydrogen cycle.
• Is there anything about it you recommend changing? I would add more figures, specifically one for each section and phase transitions of hydrogen between the hydrosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere.

Oxygen Cycle

Evaluating Content

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? All of the content in the article is relevant to the oxygen cycle. The least relevant information in the article (if I had to be nit-picky) is the mention of the sources and sinks in the first paragraph of the "Sources and sinks" section which states the production and consumption of oxygen in the modern ocean and atmosphere are in conjunction with carbon burial. I would say this is still relevant, though.
• Is there anything that distracted you? Actually, nothing was distracting to me! There were no technical terms used in the article that seemed rigid and definitions were explained for most terms (that were not linked).
• Is any information out of date? The tables within the "Capacities and fluxes" section are most likely out of date since the sources are from 2003, 2004, and 2012. It was also disclosed that the data was primarily based on estimates from a source published in 1980.
• Is anything missing that could be added? The "Biological consumption" section has the potential to be greatly expanded, such as the types of oxygen consumers (facultative, obligates, etc.). The "Abiotic production" subsection could also use further elaboration. Sections "Atmosphere", "Biosphere", "Hydrosphere", and "Lithosphere" are missing vital information and needs to include descriptions of mechanisms and reactions that all under each category.
• What else could be improved? I believe the current state of the article already has a good base (except for the previously mentioned sections that are missing important information) for expansion and would only need a more detailed description of each section. Although, the beginning paragraph of the article is already good as is.
• Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon? It has very few jargon language used. Any jargon used has already been linked to other articles for further explanation. I would only criticize that the author mentions carbolic acids in the "Hydrosphere" section without linking to its corresponding article (if it exists) or describing briefly what they are.
• Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics? Yes, they are all relevant. However, like the hydrogen cycle article, the article contains linked terms that are somewhat tangent, but relevant (crust and mantle).

Evaluating Tone

• Is the article neutral? Yes, the content appears neutral with no biased tones. All statements made were presented objectively.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? From what it appears, no heavily biased claims were made or could have been made.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Sections "Atmosphere", "Biosphere", "Hydrosphere", and "Lithosphere" are greatly underrepresented since they each only have one sentence.

Evaluating Sources

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Yes, most of the links worked (tried 8/18 of them) except for reference #10 (from 1980), which the link leads to the "Book Source" Wikipedia page. I suspect this article/book is no longer publicly available.
• Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes, the sources cited for each statement do support the statements (generally - since there were multiple citations for a single statement).
• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Mostly. The reference previously stated (from 1980) was a dead-end link which I believe no longer makes this an appropriate source. It would be good to replace it anyway since there are more recent data on global oxygen capacities and fluxes that would be more helpful. Additionally, one of the references was sourced from the National Geographic News which I'm not sure is peer-reviewed like other science journals.
• Where does the information come from? Aside from reference #10, all of the referenced sources are from reputable peer-reviewed science journals except for reference #17 (from National Geographic News).
• Are these neutral sources? Since most of them are from peer-reviewed journals, I'm sure they were written in a neutral and unbiased tone. I am suspicious of the National Geographic News source, though. Since they are a news journal their published information could be heavily skewed.
• If biased, is that bias noted? None of the sources were noted to be biased, unfortunately.

Evaluating Figure

• Finally, take a careful look at the figure(s) in the article. Is it high quality? Yes, I would say the figure is of high quality. The image is large enough to clearly see the exchange rates and cycle sequences (and it's pretty).
• Does it capture the details of the cycle? The figure clearly depicts the oxygen exchange between ecosystem types with added text within the figure describing how the exchange takes place. So yes I would say this captures the details pretty well. My only criticism is that it doesn't disclose the form of oxygen in each exchange sequence (again, I'm being nit-picky).
• Is there anything about it you recommend changing? The molecular forms oxygen for each exchange sequence, as previously mentioned (e.g. O2, NO2, O3, etc.).

Assignment 2 - Evaluate Your Article

Caprock

Evaluating Content

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes, everything in the article is relevant, although very broad.
• Is there anything that distracted you? What distracted me the most was the sudden shift in focus to escarpment. As someone who had no previous knowledge of caprock, the article could have first explained how caprock is related to escarpment for an easier transition in reading.
• Is any information out of date? Seeing how two out of the three references are from 1966 and 1976 (with the third being from 2001), I would say the information is most likely out of date. For example, the article's last two references were linked to a journal archive, meaning the information used may not be currently relevant, or inaccurate. The references need to be updated.
• Is anything missing that could be added? The following is information I believe should be added to the article:
  1. Description:
     • Could use some information on the formation processes of caprock. The word "formation" is hyperlinked but I don't think it provides a good contextual description of the process.
     • Can also include the composition of caprocks (sandstone, limestone, halite, and basalt)
  2. Petroleum:
     • Can be further improved by adding economic relevance.
  3. Salt Dome:
     • Could provide information on what the sediment-calcite-gypsum-anhydrite sequence is and how it forms.
  4. General additions:
     • A good bulk of the information is missing citations, which I believe violates Wiki citation policies. Finding reviewed resources for these would be good to add.
     • A hyperlink could be added to the words "hydrocarbon" and "erosion" for clarity.
     • The article could also benefit from having more figures.
     • More reference is needed in this article since there are only three. Especially, with references that are more recent.
     • A section about its geographical distribution could be added as well.
• What else could be improved? I believe the suggested information would greatly improve the article while adding overall detailed information. The article can also be rearranged and further organized into subsections. For example, the "Petroleum" section could be more focused on the general involvement of hydrocarbons (e.g. gas and oil) with a subsection focusing on petroleum and its economic relevance. Lastly, the references
• Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon? There is minimal jargon with most of the technical terms being hyperlinked.
• Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics? Yes, I would say all of the links are related to the article's topic.

Evaluate Tone

• Is the article neutral? Yes, all information stated was presented in an objective tone.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Although not a legitimate "position", the article heavily focuses on notable landmarks, however, was explains their relevance objectively.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The general details on formation, mineralogy, and geographical distribution were greatly underrepresented while the use of the landmarks was overrepresented.

Evaluating Sources

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? The first linked reference leads to the "Book Source" Wikipedia page while the other two lead to the AAPG Datapage Archive, so I wouldn't necessarily say they "work" in the context of useful links since they're not pubicly accessible.
• Does the source support the claims in the article? I can't say since the articles used weren't accessible.
• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? No, none of the references are reliable and, therefore, are not appropriate.
• Where does the information come from? The first reference comes from the "Book Source" Wikipedia page and the the last two are from the AAPG Datapage Archive.
• Are these neutral sources? The last two references seemed to have been from science journals in previous years (most likely peer-reviewed), so they're most likely neutral-toned.
• If biased, is that bias noted? No bias was noted.

Evaluating Talk Page

• Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The first section has several comments on the first sentence of the article's "Description" section being a copy of the introduction (duplicate sentences), followed by some proposed suggestions for improvements. They also seem to be asking for certain moderators (or anybody in general) to edit the article due to its current state. The last section has a single comment about what I believe was a typo that involved parentheses.
• How is the article rated? Currently, the article is ranked as a C-class and is considered of low importance.
• Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's part of the Geology WikiProjects.

Assignment 4 - Draft Your Contributions

1. Lead Section

Introductory Sentence:

Caprock is a hard, resistant, and impermeable layer of rock that overlies and protects a reservoir of softer organic material, similar to the crust on a pie where the crust (caprock) prevents leakage of the soft filling (softer material).

2. Article

Geological Characteristics

Caprock is typically composed of erosion-resistant materials, common caprock materials include strongly cemented sandstone, limestone, basalt, and evaporites like anhydrite, gypsum, or halite, which form over salt domes. The formation of caprock occurs through processes such as differential erosion, where resistant rocks remain as elevated features while softer rocks erode away; depositional processes, including chemical precipitation of volcanic activity; and diagenesis, where sediments transform into hard rock over geological time. These processes collectively create durable layers that shape landscapes and preserve subsurface resources.

Environmental and Economic Importance

Hydrocarbon Trapping (Petroleum)

"In the petroleum industry, caprock is any nonpermeable formation that may trap oil, gas or water, preventing it from migrating to the surface. This caprock can prevent hydrocarbons from migrating to the surface, allowing them to accumulate in a reservoir." Effective caprock materials, such as shale, evaporites (salt), and hardened carbonate rocks, prevent these resources from escaping. "The efficiency of caprock in sealing hydrocarbons is influenced by several factors such as lithology, thickness, porosity, permeability, and mechanical properties. However, the sealing capacity of caprocks can be compromised by the presence of faults or fractures, which may act as pathways for hydrocarbon leakage. These structures, also known as petroleum traps, are a primary target for the petroleum industry."

Land Formations

Caprock shapes landscapes by slowing, creating features or formation types like mesas, buttes, and escarpments. However, when the softer rock beneath the caprock erodes, the caprock can collapse, forming talus slopes at the base of cliffs. Caprock also shapes river systems by controlling erosion patterns, often creating waterfalls where its hardened layers are exposed. They can also act as aquifers, storing groundwater, while impermeable caprock layers can trap water, creating enclosed aquifers. Additionally, caprock layers can affect land use and agriculture by influencing soil composition and water infiltration. In some regions, cap rock-covered areas have little to no vegetation due to a lack of water penetration into overlaying soil, limiting farming potential.

Notable Caprock Formations

Texas Escarpment

Salt Dome

Canadian Shield Caprock

Table Mountain (South Africa)

Grand Canyon

The Grand Canyon is an example of how caprock influences erosion and landform development. Its layered rock formations include caprock layers such as sandstone and limestone and shape the canyon's dramatic cliffs and plateaus. Durable caprock layers slow erosion and preserve features such as mesas and buttes, while softer underlying rocks erode more quickly, creating the steep walls of the Grand Canyon. In some areas, the collapse of caprock is what formed the canyon's talus slopes. The flowing pathway of the Colorado River, cutting through the canyon, is also influenced by the hardened caprock layers. The caprock formations of the Grand Canyon are also known to trap water and form pockets of aquifers.