Talk:Aluminum cycle

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Aluminum cycle is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kabernathy Peer Review[edit]

Lead section: I really like the lead section of this article. I think it is very clear to the reader what thermochronology is and I like how it explains that thermochronology is a subfield within geology and that it is also associated with geochronology. It gives a good overview of the topic and explains what will be talked about further (fission track dating). However, I think there should be some citations within this text, so readers know that its reliable information. In particular, the second paragraph could have a citation.

Structure: The structure of this article is clear. The reader knows that the first section is an overview of thermochronology and that the sections following that will be types of dating such as: fission track dating, 4He/3He dating, uranium-thorium-helium dating, potassium-argon and argon-argon dating.

Balance of coverage: The overview of thermochronology is a great length, it doesn’t contain too much information and it is clear what will be talked about further. The fission track dating is talked about more than the overview, which is good because it goes into more detail about how radiometric dating is used to determine the age of uranium-rich minerals. Furthermore, I know for this assignment we may not have the time to talk about all the different types of dating, but the fission track dating section is written about more than the other types of dating. So, to avoid bias the other types of dating could be talked about more since they are listed in the thermochronology overview.

Neutral content: The information in this article is neutral. There aren’t any phrases that would suggest that the author has a specific perspective on the information. The information is based on facts and presented in a way that doesn’t attempt to persuade the reader into accepting a particular viewpoint or idea.

Reliable sources: Most of the statements in the article are connected to a reliable source and each of the sources is either a book or a journal article that is reliable. Additionally, the information is cited evenly from different sources, so the article isn’t unbalanced. However, I would cite either the first or second sentence of the fission track dating section. Also, as I’ve said before I think there should be citations in the overview section. Overall, nice job! Tplattner24 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jmckaig Peer Review for Kabernathy9 Article[edit]

This is an excellent start to the article!

The lead section is concise but informative, summarizing what the aluminum cycle is and briefly introducing why aluminum cycling is important. The structure is logical, beginning with lithospheric cycling, then moving on to aquatic cycling and biotic cycling. Dividing cycle components into natural and anthropogenic aspects will also assist in contextualizing where and why such aluminum cycling occurs. The coverage is evenly balanced between the sources used, and language is neutral. No clear bias is evident in the article. I'm confused by some of the wording in the "Biotic Cycle" section, where you say that aluminum is "essential for almost all living things" and that "Biota neither recognizes aluminum as essential nor as toxins". These two statements seem contradictory to me, so I suggest rewording or clarifying them.

The figure looks great -- it is visually appealing, colorful, and easy to understand. Arrows clearly indicate sources and sinks, and it is easy to trace aluminum's flow through the atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and hydrosphere. Just as a small formatting suggestion, it would be nice to put the flux magnitudes inside the arrows, to further differentiate those numbers from reservoirs. Units are clearly described in the caption, and data sources are clearly linked. All the major fluxes and reservoirs described in the article are represented in the figure, making for a complete, accurate, and high-quality figure.

Citations are formatted correctly, and link to peer-reviewed literature published in reputable scientific journals. There are only a few citations so far, so be sure to integrate more citations as you continue writing this article.

Great job!

Jmckaig (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Biogeochemical Processes[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 10 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Edstr121, RaineRuthanneWay, JamesTLen (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hemst010, Bohne086, Quovi, Drumm065.

— Assignment last updated by Hemst010 (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]