Draft talk:Direct Air Capture of Carbon Dioxide

CCS class - Peer review
Hello, this is my submission for the peer review assignment:

The lead section is written in simple language that is easy to understand. It has already provided the most salient information in defining DAC, the current state of the technology, and its prospect. With respect to the current state of the draft, the length of the lead is also reasonable and reflect the content of the article well.
 * Lead section:

The structure is clear and logical. I might suggest to have the "Financial Costs" to appear right after "Energy and Water Requirements for Direct Air Capture" as these two sections have more closely related link (i.e., both are "costs" in some sense), instead of appearing at the end of the article.
 * Structure

In general, the content under the heading is fairly balanced. But in the subsection, the amount of available content may give an impression of an unbalanced coverage. For example, one would imagine that the absorption, adsorption, and membrane DAC methods should be given around the same amount of length. This issue should be straightforward to rectify with added content in the final version.
 * Balanced coverage

The article is neutral and written in an impersonal, scientific way.
 * Neutrality

Some sentences and statements in the draft will benefit with additional referencing and in-text citation. As an example, in the lead paragraph, "Implementing DAC would help to overshoot emission goals from Paris Climate Agreement" should be imbued with a relevant source.
 * Sources

The skeleton of the draft has been well formed. With a more developed content and perhaps addition of interesting and relevant figures, this has the prospect to be a good article.

Qazxsw23edc (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Qazxsw23edc

CCS class - Peer review 2
Hi I'm reviewing this article too

Auddz (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * simple and straightforward, would be more engaging if there's more data, illustration, etc.
 * good analysis of different techniques employed for DAC, but it may be easier to understand, especially for people who don't have a strong background in chem/cheme if there are graphs/flowchart
 * the 4 methods discussed under methods could also be elaborated more upon their specific application to DAC, but good job on linking to the existing pages so people can easily jump between different topics and learn
 * more data for energy consumption and finance cost would be more convincing, esp. very various sources. And these 2 senction should be put after each other
 * was really and interested to see existing projects, totally applied all the points discussed above in the page and a clear but succinct summary
 * the overall structure is good, all arguments were well thought and written for the audience, and tone was neutral