Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Georgia Institute of Technology/Biogeochemical Cycles (Spring 2019)

< Wikipedia:Wiki Ed
This Course Wikipedia Resources Connect
Questions? Ask us:

contact@wikiedu.org

Course name
Biogeochemical Cycles
Institution
Georgia Institute of Technology
Instructor
Jennifer Glass
Wikipedia Expert
Ian (Wiki Ed)
Subject
Biogeochemistry
Course dates
2019-01-08 00:00:00 UTC – 2019-04-23 23:59:59 UTC
Approximate number of student editors
20


This course will prepare advanced undergraduate and graduate students for research in a variety of scientific fields that incorporate aspects of biogeochemical cycles through deep space and time. We will use an English version of the 1926 text “The Biosphere,” by Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945), the grandfather of the field, to examine the major discoveries in our field over the last century by reading seminal research articles, with one student assigned to lead each paper discussion. This course will alternate between lecture and discussion. Lectures will focus on one or more broad concepts and their connections to Vernadsky. Each lecture will conclude with a brief description of one step in a biogeochemical cycle.

The course project will consist of an individual science communication project to be made publicly available by the end of the semester. Students have a choice of either (i) improving a Wikipedia page on a biogeochemical cycle (other than carbon); (ii) translating a seminal paper in the field of biogeochemistry to English that is written in another language (paper must not currently be available in English translation); or (iii) creating an original scientific figure/illustration of a biogeochemical cycle.

Student Assigned Reviewing
Windyor Mercury cycle Phosphorus cycle
M maraviglia Nitrogen cycle Silica cycle
Lilysandler Calcium cycle Nitrogen Cycle
Annikaj3 Iron cycle Iron cycle
BeccaMGM Iron cycle Iron cycle
Nuts4squirrels Redfield ratio Methane
Zjli0415 Sulfur Cycle Redfield ratio
ScienceBuzz Silica cycle Mercury cycle
Rotheconrad Oxygen Cycle Oxygen cycle
Lawrenjk Hydrogen cycle Sulfur cycle
Congluo819 Nitrogen cycle Nitrogen cycle
Timmyhuanghe Cap carbonate Artemisinin
Ajohnson439 Methane Hydrogen
Bfields6 Draft:Manganese cycle Calcium cycle
Pengxiao Xu Oxygen cycle Oxygen cycle
Wanbiao Phosphorus cycle Mercury cycle
Yliu3089 Artemisinin Cap carbonate

Timeline

Week 3

Course meetings
Tuesday, 22 January 2019   |   Thursday, 24 January 2019
In class - Introduction to the Wikipedia assignment

Welcome to your Wikipedia assignment's course timeline. This page guides you through the steps you'll need to complete for your Wikipedia assignment, with links to training modules and your classmates' work spaces.

Your course has been assigned a Wikipedia Expert. You can reach them through the Get Help button at the top of this page.

Resources:

Assignment - Get started on Wikipedia

Create an account and join this course page, using the enrollment link your instructor sent you. (Because of Wikipedia's technical restraints, you may receive a message that you cannot create an account. To resolve this, please try again off campus or the next day.) 

Complete these four training modules before starting the assignment.

More important tips on editing Wikipedia here.

Guide(s) for writing articles in your topic area

Chemistry

Ecology

Environmental Sciences

Week 4

Course meetings
Tuesday, 29 January 2019   |   Thursday, 31 January 2019
Milestones

By Friday Feb 1, everyone will have received an email from Prof Glass with their assignedWikipedia article. Add the article to your Watchlist by clicking the star next to "View history" will help you keep track. Add your email to your account to get notifications if something on the page changes.

Week 5

Course meetings
Tuesday, 5 February 2019   |   Thursday, 7 February 2019

Week 6

Course meetings
Tuesday, 12 February 2019   |   Thursday, 14 February 2019
Assignment - Evaluate Your Article or Image

Assignment 1

Take notes in your sandbox. Create a section in your sandbox titled "Article evaluation" where you'll leave notes about your observations and learnings. As you read the article you've chosen, answer the questions below in your sandbox as they relate to the article's content, tone, and sourcing.
 
Evaluating content. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved? Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon? Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics?
 
Evaluating tone. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? 
 
Evaluating sources. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 

Evaluating talk page. Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? 

Adding to the talk page. Choose at least one of the four evaluation comments you wrote in your sandbox and leave at least one paragraph of evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Assignment Grading (9 pts possible):

1 pt: Notes have been added to the correct place (in your Sandbox).

1 pt: At least one paragraph of notes have been added about the article’s content.

1 pt: At least one sentence of notes have been added about the article’s tone.

1 pt: At least one sentence of notes have been added about the article’s sources.

1 pt: At least one sentence of notes have been added about the article’s talk page.

1 pt: At least one paragraph of notes have been added to the article’s talk page.

1 pt: The student has signed the article’s talk page with four tildes Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

1 pt: The writing is high quality (contains no spelling and few grammatical mistakes).

1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline. 

Week 7

Course meetings
Tuesday, 19 February 2019   |   Thursday, 21 February 2019
Assignment - Find Your Sources

Assignment 2

Compile a list of at least ten relevant, reliable books or peer-reviewed journal articles on your article topic that are not already cited in your Wikipedia article page. Provide the full citation for each source, eg: 

Last name, first name (year). Book name. City, State: Publisher name. ISBN #.

Last name, first name (year). "Article title (all common nouns should be lower-case)". Journal Name. Volume(issue): pg–pg. DOI #. 

Examples: 

Crane, Kathleen (2003). Sea Legs : Tales of a Woman Oceanographer. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. ISBN 9780813342856. http://www.worldcat.org/title/sea-legs-tales-of-a-woman-oceanographer/oclc/51553643

Crane, Kathleen; Ballard, Robert D. (1980). "The Galapagos Rift at 86° W: 4. Structure and morphology of hydrothermal fields and their relationship to the volcanic and tectonic processes of the Rift Valley". Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 85 (B3): 1443–1454. https://doi.org/10.1029/jb085ib03p01443

Include the website for the book or journal article next to each citation. Please use the DOI-based links that direct to the journal webpage (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.036) or the journal web page for that article; do not link to internal GT library URLs.

You may also post other allowable sources, but those will not count toward the 5 source requirement.

Post that bibliography to the Talk page of the article you'll be working on, and in your sandbox. 

Check in on the Talk page to see if anyone has advice on your bibliography.

Peer-reviewed review articles published in high-ranking academic journals are ideal sources for Wikipedia articles. 

Here are instructions for how to access peer-reviewed journal review articles through Google Scholar with Georgia Tech library subscriptions: 

1) Go to scholar.google.com

2) Click on the three vertical bars in the top left corner of the page. 

3) Scroll down, and click on "Settings" 

4) On the left side of the screen, click on "Library Links" 

5) Type "Georgia Tech" into search bar and click on the search icon. 

6) Check the box next to "Georgia Tech Library - Find It!   GT" and click "Save". 

7) Enter your article topic into the Google Scholar search box, along with the word "review" to find review articles on your topic. 

8) Once you locate an article that looks interesting, click "Find It!   GT" to the right of the article. 

9) You will be redirected to the GT Library article access page. Scroll down to the "View It" section and click the link next to "Full text available at" (the top option). 

10) You will be redirected to a log in page. Log in with your GT username and password. 

11) You will be redirected to the article page. Find the PDF link and download the article PDF. 

Assignment Grading (14 pts possible):

1 pt (x10 possible) for each book or peer-reviewed publication listed in the proper Wikipedia format.

1 pt for providing the website for each reference.

1 pt for posting the bibliography on your Sandbox.

1 pt for posting the bibliography on your article’s talk page.

1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline. 

Week 8

Course meetings
Tuesday, 26 February 2019   |   Thursday, 28 February 2019
Assignment - Add to an article

Assignment 3

Note: this assignment is the same for those editing articles or figures. The purpose is to practice editing actual Wikipedia articles by taking the baby step of adding some additional references and wikilinks.
 
First, take notes (in your own words) on one of your sources. (You don't need to turn the notes in, but make sure to keep them to refer back to them as you work on your article.)
 
Second, find a place in your Wikipedia article (not in your Sandbox, although you can draft it there first) where one of your 10 sources (from the previous assignment) could help support a statement. Add a citation to that location in the article. Make sure to include all the necessary information so that the citation is complete.
 

More important tips on adding references on Wikipedia here.

If you can't find an uncited statement, add 1-2 sentences to go along with your source as you learned in the Adding Citations training. Make sure the information you're adding isn't already covered in the article. If it is, check if that existing statement cites a source. If not, add yours!

 

Repeat the process again for a second reference. 

Third, add links from your article to other Wikipedia articles, and from other Wikipedia articles to your own. Link to 3–5 articles, and link to your article from 2–3 other articles. Read page 12 of Editing Wikipedia to see how. 
 
Finally, make sure to publish all the changes, and submit brief summaries of your changes (as requested) each time you publish. Congrats! You just made your first changes to a Wikipeda article !

 

Assignment Grading (7 pts possible):

1 pt: At least 2 new sources from Assignment 2 have been added to the Wikipedia article.

1 pt: The 2 citations are relevant for the statements where they are cited.

1 pt: Complete citations have been added for the 2 new citations.

1 pt: The article has been linked to 3-5 Wikipedia articles.

1 pt: The article has been linked from 2-3 other Wikipedia articles.

1 pt: All published changes have been annotated.

1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline. 

Week 9

Course meetings
Tuesday, 5 March 2019   |   Thursday, 7 March 2019
Assignment - Draft your contributions

Assignment 4

Create a draft of your article edits, or a draft of your figure and figure caption, in your sandbox. Make sure your article or figure/caption draft includes the following at the bare minimum to receive credit for the draft, and work towards inclusion of all categories listed in the "Final Draft" description (see below). 

If you are editing the text: 

1. Lead Section 

Introductory sentence: Student has edited the introductory sentence (if necessary) to state the article topic concisely and accurately in single sentence. 

2. Article 

Content: Student has added at least 2 paragraphs of additional text to the article. 

3. References

Citations: Student has cited at least 5 peer-reviewed publications in the added text. 

If you are editing the figure:

1. Draft figure. The figure draft should provide a scientifically accurate and high-quality depiction of the biogeochemical cycle. 

Content: Student has added two additional concepts (e.g. pathways, environments or fluxes) not present in the original figure. 

2. Figure caption 

Citations: Student has written a high-quality figure caption that is sufficiently detailed to provide readers with the information necessary to comprehend all components of the draft figure. The draft figure cation cites at least 5 peer-reviewed publications. 

Remember: Nothing you add to your Sandbox can violate Wikipedia plagiarism and copyright rules!

Reach out to your Wikipedia Expert if you have questions using the Get Help button at the top of this page.

Resource: Editing Wikipedia, pages 7–9

Assignment Grading (8 pts possible):

1 pt: The draft text or figure has been added to the correct place (in your Sandbox).

1 pt: The draft text includes a lead section with a concise and accurate single sentence, or the draft figure provides a scientifically accurate depiction of the biogeochemical cycle.

1 pt: The draft text includes at least two paragraphs of new text, or the draft figure includes at least two additional concepts not present in the previous figure.

1 pt: The draft text or draft figure caption cites at least 5 peer-reviewed publications or books.

1 pt: The 5 citations are relevant and appropriate for the statements or figure caption where they are cited.

1 pt: The draft text or figure does not violate Wikipedia plagiarism or copyright policies.

1 pt: The draft text or figure is high quality (text contains no spelling and few grammatical mistakes, and figure is labeled and neat).

1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline. 

Week 10

Course meetings
Tuesday, 12 March 2019   |   Thursday, 14 March 2019
Assignment - Peer review an article or figure

    • Assignment 5

      Peer review is about identifying the strengths and weaknesses of an article. As you go through the review process, make note of what the article or figure accomplishes well, alongside where it could be improved. Pay close attention to whether or not the article or figure contains the following: 

      If you are peer reviewing an article:

      1) A lead section that is easy to understand. The lead is the first section of an article. It usually states the most important information about the article's subject, and gives a good overview of the rest of the article. Good leads don't get too bogged down in detail, and don't simply repeat what's in the article below. You should be able to read the lead and feel like you have a pretty good grasp of what the article is about. 

      For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?

      2) A clear structure. Now, let's look at the article itself. Different aspects of the article should each have their own section. The difference between sections should be easy to understand, and each statement should have a clear reason for being where it is. 

      For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

      3) Balanced coverage. Wikipedia articles are summaries of pre-existing resources. They should be balanced according to the available literature. No aspect should take over too much of the article, and more well-documented viewpoints should get more space. However, a good article also presents minority viewpoints and positions. 

      For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

      4) Neutral content. Wikipedia articles aim for a neutral point of view. That means they don't attempt to persuade the reader into accepting a particular idea or position.

      For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

      5) Reliable sources. Good articles are built on good sources. When you've carefully reviewed the article or figure, turn to the references section.

      For the peer review, you should comment on the following: Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately.

      If you are peer reviewing a figure:

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

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

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

      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. 

      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. 

      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. 

      Consider the following structure, drawing from your notes:

      First, what does the article or figure do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase or presentation that described/depicted the subject in a clear way? What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article or figure? Why would those changes be an improvement?

      What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article or figure?  Did you notice anything about the article or figure you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article or figure? If you are peer-reviewing a figure or article that is on the same subject as yours, discuss in your peer review how you can integrate your content with the other student's. Where is the best place in the article text to place the figure? Are there any duplicated references?

      Tips: 

      Many students consider peer review to be difficult, because they don't want to criticize a classmate's work. Remember that critiquing doesn't equal criticism. That's why it's helpful to post your comments as useful ideas. For example, instead of suggesting an editor is biased one way or another, focus on the content within the article that suggests a bias. In the end, you aren't criticizing your peer, you are evaluating the article.

      When you have reviewed your peer's article or figure, you should leave a message on their User Page Talk page (see instructions below).

       

      How to submit your peer review comments: 

      1) On the Articles' tab, find your peer's article that you have been assigned to review. 

      2) In the "My Articles" section of the Home tab, assign it to yourself to review. 

      3) Find your peers' sandbox. Navigate there from the Students tab on the Dashboard and click their username. 

      4) Go to the Talk page of their sandbox (at the top left of the page). Click "New section". 

      5) Add a subject, something like "Samantha's peer review". 

      6) Leave your notes in the space below. Enter your message with comments on all five of the categories listed above.  Remember to sign with four tildes! (Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)). (Reminder: visual editing is not available when using Talk pages. For tips on using Wikicode, see the back page of your Editing Wikipedia brochure or revisit the editing training.) Save the page.[reply]

      Here is an example of how to navigate to New Section on a Talk page:

      File:Https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Sandbox talk page.png

      Assignment Grading (8 points possible): 

      1 pt: The draft has been added to the correct place (as a New Section in Talk Page of Peer’s User Page).

      1 pt: The peer review is written respectfully and provides constructive criticism. (No personal attacks!)

      1 pt: The peer review provides one paragraph of comments on the peer article’s lead section or one paragraph of comments on the scientific accuracy of the peer figure.

      1 pt: The peer review provides one paragraph of comments on the peer article’s structure or one paragraph of comments on the peer figure’s presentation and neatness.

      1 pt: The peer review provides one paragraph of comments on the peer article’s balance of coverage or one paragraph of comments on the peer figure’s level of completeness and detail.

      1 pt: The peer review provides one paragraph of comments on the peer article’s neutral content or one paragraph of comments on the quality and completeness of the peer figure’s figure caption.

      1 pt: The peer review provides one paragraph of comments on the reliability and relevance of the peer article or figure’s 10 citations.

      1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline.

  •  

Week 11

Course meetings
Tuesday, 26 March 2019   |   Thursday, 28 March 2019
Assignment - Edit your work based on peer review

Exercise

Add links to your article

Now's the time to revisit your text and refine your work based on the comments you received from your peer. You may do more research and find missing information or references; rewrite the lead section to represent all major points; reorganize the text to communicate the information better; redraw the figure; etc. etc. 

Assignment - Begin moving your work to Wikipedia

Now that you've improved your draft based on others' feedback, it's time to move your work live - to the "mainspace."

Resource: Editing Wikipedia, page 13

Week 12

Course meetings
Tuesday, 2 April 2019   |   Thursday, 4 April 2019
Assignment - Polish your work

Continue to expand and improve your work, and format your article to match Wikipedia's tone and standards. Remember to contact your Wikipedia Expert at any time if you need further help!

Week 13

Course meetings
Tuesday, 9 April 2019   |   Thursday, 11 April 2019
Assignment - Final article

Assignment 6

Finalize and publish the changes to your article or figure. 

Ensure that the final version contains the following: 

If you are editing an article: 

1. Lead Section 

Introductory sentence: States article topic concisely and accurately in single sentence

Summary: Summarizes all major points in the article

Context: All information included is also present in body of the article

2. Article 

Organization: Clear organization of heading and subheadings; appropriate transitions and  clear language/grammar

Content: Accurately covers scientific information relevant to assigned topic; links to relevant Wikipedia articles for background. 

Balance: Article presents balanced coverage without favoring one side unduly. 

Tone: Tone is neutral and appropriate for an encyclopedia audience.

Wikilinks: the article is thoroughly wiki-linked

3. References

Citations: Every statement can easily be associated with a supporting reference

Sources: Includes citations for at least five peer-reviewed publications.

Completeness: All references added include completely filled-out citation template or are otherwise complete.

If you are editing a figure: 

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

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

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

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 reservoirs. 

5) The schematic 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. 

6) The figure caption should cite reliable sources. 

Assignment Grading (14 points possible):

1 pt: The final article or figure has been published (moved out of Sandbox).

1 pt: The edited article or figure is high quality (contains no spelling and few grammatical mistakes).

1 pt: The lead section’s introductory sentence states the article topic concisely and accurately, or, the figure provides a scientifically accurate depiction of a complete biogeochemical cycle.

1 pt: The article contains a lead section that summarizes all major points in the article, or, the figure significantly expands upon, or more clearly depicts, the cycle than the previous version. 

1 pt: All information in the lead is also present in the body of the article, or, all information in the figure is thoroughly explained in the figure caption. 

1 pt: The article is well-organized, with heading and subheadings, or, the figure is neat and well-organized, with arrows connecting components of the cycle. 

1 pt: The article accurately covers scientific information relevant to the cycle, or, the figure contains quantitative data (e.g size of reservoirs, magnitude of fluxes, etc).

1 pt: Any relevant technical terms in the article or figure caption are linked to a Wikipedia article.

1 pt: The tone is neutral and appropriate for an encyclopedia audience, or, the figure is labeled accurately, with all unlabeled symbols defined in a legend and units provided for the size of reservoirs and fluxes. 

1 pt: Every statement in the article or figure caption is associated with a supporting reference.

1 pt: The article or figure caption cites at least 10 peer-reviewed publications or books.

1 pt: All references added include completely filled-out citation template or are otherwise complete.

1 pt: Suggestions for modifications from the peer reviewer have been changed.  

1 pt: Assignment is completed by the deadline. 

Week 14

Course meetings
Tuesday, 16 April 2019   |   Thursday, 18 April 2019

Week 15

Course meetings
Tuesday, 23 April 2019
In class - In-class presentation

Assignment 7

Present an 8-10 minute PowerPoint presentation on your Wikipedia assignment, addressing the following points:

  • Critiquing articles: What did you learn about Wikipedia during the article evaluation? How did you approach critiquing the article or figure you selected for this assignment? How did you decide what to add to your chosen article?
  • Summarizing your contributions: Include a summary of your edits and why you felt they were a valuable addition to the article. How does your article compare to earlier versions? 
  • Connections to the classroom: Did you include information we covered in class? What new scientific information did you write about? 
  • Peer Review: What did you contribute in your review of your peer's article or figure? What did your peers recommend you change on your article?
  • Feedback: Did you receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors, and if so, how did you respond to and handle that feedback?
  • Wikipedia generally: What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia? How does a Wikipedia assignment compare to other assignments you've done in the past? How can Wikipedia be used to improve public understanding of our field/your topic? Why is this important?

Assignment Grading (8 pts possible):

1 pt: Student presented 8-10 minute PowerPoint presentation during assigned lecture period.

1 pt: PowerPoint slides are well organized and contain no spelling mistakes.

1 pt: Presentation addressed assignment questions about critiquing articles or figures.

1 pt: Presentation summarized student contributions

1 pt: Presentation covered any connections between article topic and EAS 6122/4602 content

1 pt: Presentation summarized peer review process

1 pt: Presentation summarized Wikipedia editor feedback (if any)

1 pt: Presentation summarized student’s experience with Wikipedia Project as a whole


Milestones

Everyone should have finished all of the work they'll do on Wikipedia, and be ready for grading.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Georgia_Institute_of_Technology/Biogeochemical_Cycles_(Spring_2019)&oldid=992310025"