User talk:EJMimosa/sandbox

Jameel's Peer Review

Lead Section:

The lead section for your article is clear, concise, and particularly palatable in that we can immediately pull common oxidation states of Iodine from the introduction rather than requiring a deep dive through the article itself.

Clear Structure:

Your article flowed well from the lead section to your cycling sections and finally wrapping up in a discussion on human influences upon the Iodine Cycle.

Markedly, under both of your cycling sections you detail the primary inventory of Iodine and then highlight means of volatilization, sedimentation, etc- well done. This is very easy to follow and appreciated from the perspective of someone trying to learn a new process.

Balanced Coverage:

1) Ratio of Length to Importance:

The article maintains a healthy balance between all of its sections- we need to understand the holistic cycling of Iodine to understand the biogeochemical cycling of Iodine and a brief introduction followed by two, well portioned, discussions on Oceanic and Terrestrial Cycling is appropriate. Further, a brief and concluding introduction to anthropogenic influences on the iodine cycle helped the reader understand a minority view without the article being consumed by said view.

2) Unnecessary Sections:

There were no unnecessary sections. We need to understand how Iodine cycles through the oceans and land as well as how we impact the Iodine Cycle if we want to actually say we are learning about the Iodine Cycle- this article does just that.

3) Off-topic Sections:

There were no notable off-topic sections.

4) Reflection of Perspectives and Literature:

This article properly reflects the published literature without embellishment.

5) Significant Viewpoints Missing:

There were no significant viewpoints missing. We capture a brief synopsis of Iodine Cycling in our lead section, follow with details on Oceanic and Terrestrial Cycling, and conclude on Anthropogenic Influences.

6) Does The Article Attempt To Convey a Particular View Upon the Reader:

No, this article describes the Iodine Cycle through citations and digested fact- the reader can find what they need from the article and can follow any of these citations to further learning.

Neutral Content:

This analysis may be out of place and better suited for the reliable sources section but my particularly favorite attribute of this article is the usage of sources/citations for each statement made there-in. There is little to no concern over embellishment as we can immediately fact-check and valid the information with a provided source. This overarching theme alone builds a strong foundation for the neutrality of this article.

Furthermore, given the nature of this writing- Biogeochemical Cycling- we expect to read a digestible introduction to the global chemical and biological cycling of Iodine. Throughout your article there does not seem to be a single instance of implied narrative or non-neutral discussion on the scientific fact behind Iodine Cycling.

Reliable Sources:

The sources leveraged within this article are reliable and properly equip the material with an empirical foundation (akin to what we might find within a consummate biogeochemical cycle article in a normal Wikipedia page).

Sources are cited consistently in form under your 'References' section as well as in text.

Peer Reviewing the Figure:

1) The figure should depict a complete biogeochemical cycle.

This figure depicts a well built and interconnected biogeochemical cycle.

2) The figure should incorporate quantitative data.

Fluxes and reservoirs are accurately labeled and measurement magnitude is described within the caption.

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

The utilization of space within this figure is pushing the boundaries of optimal (everything is tightly placed yet easy to follow).

4) Each pathway on the figure should be labeled properly.

There was no need for a legend (in my opinion) as the caption appropriately captures any descriptors of concern (reservoir size, flux magnitude, etc).

5) The figure should be thoroughly explained in the figure caption.

Without any prior information of this subject your figure caption properly guides the observer through the Iodine Cycle.

Hopefully this isn't too trite but the reader may not understand what a flux or 'inventory' is in the context of biogeochemical cycling as this material may be extremely novel to them (think back to Freshman year when our world barely escaped the confines of the sciences and maths transmitted throughout grade school). My article didn't consider this either and I am about to go back and clean up some of the assumptions I made towards our audience.

6) The figure caption should cite reliable sources

As a throwback to our evaluation of sources above- keeping in line with the article body- your figure and its caption cite all transmissible information with well vetted sources.

Response

Thank you for your review! I agree with your point about fluxes and inventories. I have added links to the relevant page for the flux, and I have defined inventories as sinks in the figure description.EJMimosa (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)