User:NissaE/Phosphorus biogeochemistry/Jinoong31 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

NissaE

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:NissaE/Phosphorus_biogeochemistry

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Phosphorus biogeochemistry

Evaluate the drafted changes

The following review takes into consideration that this is a new article published and suggestions provided below may not fully reflect the long term trajectory needed for the article's development.

Lead

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

• To better differentiate this article from the Phosphorus Cycle article (and prevent possible confusion), I would highly suggest adding a introductory sentence that indicates what Phosphorus biogeochemistry is (e.g. maybe it is a general overview about the phosphorus cycling and other phosphorus biogeochemical interaction).

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

• While there are no direct descriptions referring to the "Terrestrial" and "Marine Phosphorus Cycle" sections, the general overview of the lead provides sufficient information about the two sections.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

• I believe that the lead is to the point and just right in terms of length and depth.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

• All content added are relevant to the topic. Disregarding missing content (already pointed out by author in talk page of the article), there are no content that appears to be irrelevant of the topic at hand.

Is the content added up-to-date?

• All the content currently added are properly referenced, and many based on recent academic sources.

Tone and Balance

• All content added are factual statements of neural tone, there are no obvious signs of biased claims or attempts of persuading readers.

Sources and References

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

• Yes, upon randomly checking a few highly cited sources, the associated statements reflect content described by the original sources

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

• Although the sources are not exhaustive, considering that this is a new article, it sufficiently covers the currently available content.

Are the sources current?

• Yes, half of the sources cited were of within the past 5 years, especially the few that were extensively cited throughout the article.

Check a few links. Do they work?

• There are no direct external links to the references cited. I would highly recommend reformatting your "References" section to include links (e.g. DOIs) to the sources/articles where available.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

• The content is both well-written and well-organized (good paragraphing and use of sections)

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

• The use of the word Phosphor instead of the element Phosphorus is highly misleading, as phosphor is an old term for the element phosphorus that represents a different substance in current-day language. Hence, the word phosphor should be changed to phosphorus.
• See list below for additional proofreading:
  • Lead: "The phosphorus cycles takes [take] place between the biosphere..."
  • Phosphorus regulation in soil: "Calcium carbonate effects [affects] phosphor[us] at three different levels..."
  • Subsection title: "P availability affects [effects] on microbes"
  • Subsection title: "P availability affects [effects] on Biogeochemical cycles"

Images and Media

• There are no additional images or media currently available in the article. Images depicting the general overview of the phosphorus cycle for the lead, as well as more specific summaries for the "Terrestrial Phosphorous Cycle" and "Marine Phosphorous Cycle" sections would be a good starting point!

For New Articles Only

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?

• Based on my perception of Wikipedia's Notability requirements, the article meets the general guideline stated.

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

• As aforementioned, the sources used were not exhaustive and there remains a large available literature. (As pointed out by author in article's talk page.)

Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?

• The article does not contain infoboxes and links to other Wikipedia articles under the same overarching topic (i.e. Biogeochemistry), this would be a good direction for next steps in developing the article.

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

• There are no links to other Wikipedia articles associated with the content (mention by author in the talk page). Similarly, I would also recommend adding those links if possible to help readers who want further reading.

Overall impressions

Overall, I want to say that you have done a good job at beginning a new Wikipedia article! I appreciate the idea of having a general overview of phosphorus and its relevant roles in the biogeochemical cycles at large. I think you have stated the main issues going forward in the article's talk page. Apart from the structural aspects Wikipedia articles (e.g. links, infoboxes, references, etc.), the primary goal in further developing the article is definitely adding additional relevant content in to the article.