User:Brynnams/Multi-component gas analyzer system/Johnmichael0705 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Brynnams
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Multi-component gas analyzer system

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the update provides more clarity.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead sentence explains the functionality of a multi-gas analyzer system.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead talks about volcano monitoring and locations and these are reflected in the sections below.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead lists what a multi-gas does, the components and some locations where one is set up and the articles follows along the same.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all the content in the article is relevant and related back to the lead.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, and the references are pretty current.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Maybe results from various locations can be added and then an explanation of what that means compared to air.  For example, if we say that a measurement shows 10,000 ppm of CO2, we know what that means, but the lay person that doesn't know atmospheric is around 480 ppm won't understand 10,000 is a substantial amount.
 * Brynna: thanks, good idea. Including why these measurements are definitely important for someone maybe not so familiar with the topic. I did not add specific values in because I don't believe that is necessarily the point of this article to explain why and what the data means, but more to explain what the instrument is and does. I did add some more information explaining the CO2/SO2 ratio and how those numbers are used. I felt this would help readers understand better why this ratio is looked at.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not necessarily populations, but expansion on the topic was needed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, all content is neutral showing no bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article states what a multi-gas is, what it is used for and provides references to support what a multi-gas is used to analyze.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the viewpoints have equal balance.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content is not biased and does not assume a particular position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the resources used are from reliable journals and fairly current.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, and there are varied current sources that show no bias towards one particular group of authors.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are within the last 15 years or so.  That may not seem current, but it's best to use articles that are most relevant to the article.  I think you need to correct the date format on the Shinohara reference.
 * Brynna: I am not sure what you mean about the date format on that reference? I see now the date was incorrect on the actual article but correct in my sandbox. I fixed the date format in the article.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there are a diverse pool of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is very easy to read and a person not familiar with a multi-gas will be able to understand what they are used for based on this article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is well organized into sections that relate back to the lead section.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, however, you do show 3 different type of analyzers and one may not know that these are all types of multi-gas systems.  Could be beneficial to have a section that explains each type of analyzer and what they are used to measure.  I'm not sure someone not familiar with these instruments knows that an FTIR and an DOAS would both fall under the multi-gas umbrella.
 * Brynna: That image was included with the article before I edited it, I agree it is slightly confusing, but I do think the image provides an OK look at a multi-GAS. This article is not about FTIR and DOAS, even though those type of methods can be used in a Multi-GAS, so can a lot of others. I do not think it is necessary to expand on those more. The article explains that typically a CO2 sensor is used as well as sensors for other components, the type of measuring devices/brands/methods/etc. are going to vary MG by MG.
 * Are images well-captioned? You could probably expand the caption instead of saying "one of many".  Give the name of each one and then you can expand on it in an interpretation section.
 * Brynna: The article is about the Multi-GAS. I don't think its necessary to explain what FTIR and DOAS are in it, maybe in their own article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the panels are good showing 3 different types of analyzers and the instruments making up one.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes, this meets the Notability requirement, the sources are independent and accepted by academic journals.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, varied group of authors with current papers on the subject.
 * 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? Yes, the article contains all of the necessary sections similar to other articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, there are several links to other articles and will help if a link to this article can be added on some of the other articles that have been linked here.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it has improved the content by expanding into sections the information that is mentioned in the lead section.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Knowing that there is instrumentation out there that can be used to monitor and analyze volcanic gases.
 * How can the content added be improved? Explain the different types of analyzers and what they measure, perhaps include sample data from them and relate that to ambient air.
 * Brynna: I responded to these more in detail above. I added links to pages of FTIR and DOAS in the see also section.