User:Carleydf/Anti-greenhouse effect/Trentag0n Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Carleydf


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Carleydf/Anti-greenhouse effect - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Does not exist

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Yes. The article is brand new.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - Yes. But I think it might be clearer to define the anti-greenhouse effect first, rather than immediately comparing it to the greenhouse effect. Something along the lines of "The anti-greenhouse effect is a process in which the atmosphere acts to cool the surface temperature of a planet or moon – the opposite of the greenhouse effect."
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - It covers Titan, Earth, and Mars well. It indirectly mentions energy balance theory. It does not mention exoplanets.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - Yes. The paragraph on Earth's anti-greenhouse has additional information and should be rewritten or moved to the dedicated section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The paragraph on Earth's anti greenhouse is overly detailed. It may be beneficial to summarize it in a sentence or two and then move the rest of the content to the dedicated section. This would then make the lead into one cohesive paragraph that touches on everything in the article. The other parts of the lead are concise and at a good level of detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes. It is a brand new article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes. Sources are modern.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The energy balance theory section might be too advanced for the average reader. I think it would benefit from an introductory sentence or paragraph that sets the scene. For example, what makes a gas or a haze an anti-greenhouse gas? What is the difference between the types of radiation (e.g. infrared vs visual) and why is solar radiation different from planetary radiation? Why do we use energy balance? Super detailed answers to these questions aren't necessary but at least some intro to the topic would be beneficial.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes. I don't know where the energy balance derivation is from though because I don't have access to ref 6.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes but I think the article would benefit from more secondary sources. All sources except 1 appear to be formal academic articles.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Most sources are from academic articles, so they reflect that demographic.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) -
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - In general, yes. I think the first sentence of the Earth section should explicitly mention that the haze may be responsible for an anti-greenhouse effect. The Earth section is a little difficult to understand. Specifically, the relationship between carbon dioxide, methane, hazes and climate feedbacks. This seems to be a genuinely complicated subject though, so I'm not sure how to improve it.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - Yes. Lead paragraph 2: “existed as a mixing ratio” -> change “as” to “at” or “with”. Titan paragraph 1: “Because greenhouse effect… increase…” -> “Because the greenhouse effect… increases…”
 * Is the content added well-organized - Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - Yes. The images are fantastic!
 * Are images well-captioned? - Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - I think so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - Yes.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? - It is exhaustive, but should include more secondary sources.
 * 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? - I think so.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? - Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Yes!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - In general, the content gives a very nice level of detail for how exactly the anti-greenhouse effect works without going to deep in the weeds or omitting important concepts. The figure in the energy balance section is great.
 * How can the content added be improved? - I think the lead should be reorganized by moving the detailed Earth content into the dedicated section. I think the energy balance section could use some more explanation - perhaps an intro paragraph to give the reader the tools they need to understand the derivation. I think the Earth section could be edited for clarity.

Great work Carley!

-Trent