User:Tplattner24/sandbox
 | This is a user sandbox of Tplattner24. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
Boron Cycle:[edit]
The boron cycle (B) is the biogeochemical cycle of boron through the atmosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere[1][2].
Anthropogenic Boron Fluxes
A large portion of this cycle occurs from the increase in human activity. For example, the major anthropogenic fluxes come from coal mining and combustion, oil production, emissions from industrial factories, biofuels, and the mining and processing of boron ores[1][2]. From these processes, the anthropogenic boron fluxes to the hydrosphere and atmosphere have increased[1] and anthropogenic fluxes now exceed the natural boron fluxes[1].
Atmospheric and Terrestrial Fluxes
Boron cycles through the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere[1][2]. Boron in the atmosphere is derived from multiple sources including soil dusts, emissions from volcanoes, anthropogenic activities, forest fires and biomass emissions, evaporation of boric acid from seawater, and sea spray[1]. Sea salt aerosols are the largest flux to the atmosphere. On land, boron will cycle through the biosphere by products and landfills, rock weathering, wet and dry deposition from the atmosphere, and movement of boron from the rivers to the ocean[1][2].
Ocean Fluxes
Besides anthropogenic fluxes, the marine biosphere circulates a large amount of boron mostly from the inflow of B into the oceans via dissolved forms in river transport and from the annual flux of B in wet deposition[1]. Other influxes of boron in the marine environment occur from submarine groundwater discharge and hydrothermal vents[1][2]. Boron is lost from the oceans in emissions from the ocean surface, deposition of organic materials and sediments (mostly carbonates), and the subduction of ocean sediment[1].
References[edit]
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Schlesinger, William H.; Vengosh, Avner (2016). "Global boron cycle in the Anthropocene". Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 30 (2): 219–230. doi:10.1002/2015GB005266. ISSN 1944-9224.
- ^ a b c d e f Park, Haewon; Schlesinger, William H. (2002). "Global biogeochemical cycle of boron". Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 16 (4): 20–1–20-11. doi:10.1029/2001GB001766. ISSN 1944-9224.
Article Evaluation:[edit]
Content
Sulfur Cycle: This article is well written and the article sections and content are relevant to the topic. The introduction could be organized better because the format/layout is a little odd. This section could use bullet points to separate the different steps of the sulfur cycle and this would make the information more clear. In addition, there are plenty of wikilinks throughout the text, but the marine sulfur cycle could use more of them.
Phosphorus Cycle: All the article sections and content are relevant to the topic. Nothing is distracting in the article and nothing is out of date. However, there need to be more wikilinks throughout the text, especially in the last 4 sections.
Carbon Cycle: Overall, this article is organized better than the phosphorus and sulfur cycle pages. In addition, all the article sections and content are relevant to the topic. Nothing is that distracting in the article and the information is up to date. Lastly, there are a good amount of wikilinks throughout the text and the information in the article is clear and in-depth.
Tone
Sulfur Cycle: The article is neutral and based off of facts. There aren't any claims that appear heavily biased and there aren't viewpoints overrepresented, or underrepresented.
Phosphorus Cycle: The article is neutral and based off of facts. There aren't any claims that appear heavily biased and there aren't viewpoints overrepresented, or underrepresented. (same as above)
Carbon Cycle: The article is neutral and based off of facts. There aren't any claims that appear heavily biased and there aren't viewpoints overrepresented, or underrepresented. (same as above)
Sources
Sulfur Cycle: Most of the links worked, but I did find a couple that said 'no page found'. The sources support the claims in the article and most of the facts are referenced with a reliable reference. However, the economic importance section only has 2 sources and other sentences could use a reference. The information is from peer reviewed articles and they are neutral sources.
Phosphorus Cycle: The links for the citations worked. The sources support the claims in the article and most of the facts are referenced with a reliable reference. However, there is a reference that links to a website and I think it could be backed up with an article instead. Additionally, the human influences and ecological function sections could use more citations. The information is mostly from peer reviewed articles and they are neutral sources.
Carbon Cycle: Most of the links worked, but I did find one that didn't link to information on the topic. The sources support the claims in the article and most of the facts are referenced with a reliable reference. However, there are a couple references that link to websites and I think they could be backed up with an article. The information is mostly from peer reviewed articles and they are neutral sources.
Figure (Carbon Cycle): Yes, the carbon cycle figure accurately describes the biogeochemical cycle. It is high quality, well-organized, and has arrows that connect different components of the cycle. The carbon cycle figure is much better than both the phosphorus and sulfur cycle figures. The carbon cycle figure is labeled accurately and has fluxes, but not sizes of the reservoirs. This is much better than the phosphorus and sulfur cycle figures because they don't have any fluxes or reservoirs, and the cycle could be depicted better.