User talk:BFDrouhard/sandbox

Peer Review of Gold Cycle

Article Review 1) A lead section that is easy to understand

  The lead reads more like a thesis statement than a lead into a wiki article. Try to avoid using words such as, "however", "previously", "new evidence", etc. that states an opening to an argument. I would rewrite the summary to instead start with what the most recent reviews state the importance of gold is as a biogeochemical cycle. Opening the article by saying gold is nonessential makes a reader lose interest, i.e. why would they care if the first thing they read suggests gold isn't important? 
  I would additionally add information about golds importance in biotech and other fields to introduce this section of the summary and to further stress why the gold biogeochem cycle is important to understand and study. Currently, the lead seems very disjointed from the summary as there is a lot of conflict between the two. In a thesis paper, this would work great! You've created intrigue and made a story. In a wiki article, it seems out of place and disjointed. 

2) A clear structure

  As of right now, there is only the lead and the summary. In making the different sections, I would work backwards from the summary and make a clear section for each of the important different topics discussed in the summary. Additionally, I would look at the iron and carbon cycle for inspiration of what sections should be included. From your figure, it looks like gold is cycled through the lithosphere, ocean, and atmosphere. It would make for a very clear article if you made sure to include these environments as separate sections and detailed how gold is cycled through each (chemically, biologically, etc.). It also looks like you could include a section on how the gold cycle is intertwined/affected by other cycles that you mentioned (Heading: influences and interactions of other biogeochemical cycles)

3) Balanced coverage

  Currently, there is a good job of including different perspectives and ideas. However, these sources are not presented in what seems like a neutral way, which gives the article an unbalanced presentation. Having distinct sections and making sure to present all of the most recent review papers should help to remedy this. 

4) Neutral content

  Overall the tone is neutral. However, as mentioned earlier, there is a lot of set-up in the writing that indicates this is less of an wiki article and more of a thesis or argumentative review paper. 

5) Reliable sources

  The two sources listed seem to be highly reliable. I would look for article reviews of gold in biotechnology since it seems to be such a major part of why gold is an important biogeochemical cycle. You do a great job of summarizing the material presented in the reviews. They just need to be changed to more neutral statements. 

Peer Reviewing the Figure:

1) The figure should depict a complete biogeochemical cycle. Arrows should connect components of the cycle.

  Looks like a complete biogeochem cycle! Try to connect the arrows directly to the reservoirs and make it more clear the fluxes, sources, and sinks if possible.

2) The figure should incorporate quantitative data. For example, arrows can be labeled with fluxes and components can be labeled with reservoir size.

  Looks good!!

3) The figure should be neat and make good use of space. White space should be minimized.

  You could incorporate images of gold as it exists in each of the major reservoirs to add more graphics/details to the figure. It may also help to have the boxes much larger and include larger fonts to reduced blank space.  

4) Each pathway on the figure should be labeled properly. A legend should be included for any unlabeled symbols. Units should be included for reservoir size and fluxes between resevoirs.

  I would include an explanation for how the gold is moved from each reservoir (what mechanism? Weathering, biological process, run-off?) for each arrow. Good job on including units and explaining them.

5) The figure should be thoroughly explained in the figure caption. The figure caption should lead the reader through the figure, without assuming any prior knowledge on the subject.

  I would include a short explanation of each major reservoir and perhaps also how gold is primarily moved from each. I would also mention which is the largest reservoir, which is the smallest, and which have the longest and shortest residence times.

6) The figure caption should cite reliable sources. See "reliable sources" category above. It's fine to have references cited in the main text and the figure caption.

  Good job! I bet there are additional good reviews that can be cited for this figure. Looking to see which papers cited your current papers is usually a good place to start!

Overall thoughts Great job!! This article has a lot of potential to be really great. I would really focus on why we care about gold, which seems to primarily be because of its uses in biotechnology. I would also maybe include some info about its current abundance/availability to us. It looks like gold used to be much more abundant/bioavailable in early anoxic Earth, so I would compare these numbers to current numbers in the modern oceans. I would also add a section of how gold mining has altered/changed the Earth (anthropogenic influences) since we have started mining for it and how microbes that create gold can be a possible new technology to create gold instead of having to mine for it. If you have a lot of time, you could even go into a little detail about the California gold rush and how that altered much of the topography of the West coast. Celbon (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Claire Elbon