User:Ishachahal/Cloud condensation nuclei/Sach548 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ishachahal


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ishachahal/Cloud condensation nuclei
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cloud condensation nuclei

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

It seems like much of this article has been copied and pasted from the original, so there is not much feedback to provide on your sandbox draft. However, I noticed from comparing your initial copy of the article into your sandbox to another revision, that you seemed to add citations where they were needed. This can be directly seen when I compare the sources listed under the subsection "Phytoplankton role" in your sandbox to the current Wikipedia article, because the numbers in the citations have now changed!

All of the links provided work. However, I would consider reviewing citation 1 for that doesn't look like a very reliable website. Citation 9 could also be adjusted to cite the actual article the information is coming from, instead of a website that refers to the article.

A specific comment here: in the phytoplankton section, the sentence "This is known as the CLAW hypothesis  (named after the authors' initials of a 1987 Nature paper) but no conclusive evidence to support this has yet been reported." could be shorted to "This is known as the CLAW hypothesis  (named after the authors' initials of a 1987 Nature paper) but no conclusive evidence has been reported yet." This sentence could also be improved: "Under this scenario, deprived of nutrients, marine phytoplankton would decline, as would sulfate cloud condensation nuclei, and the high albedo associated with low clouds.". In the "size, abundance, and composition" section, this sentence could be made less complicated: "This is made even more complicated by the fact that many of the chemical species may be mixed within the particles (in particular the sulfate and organic carbon).". It seems like the language used in the original article (and still in your sandbox) could be made more concise.

I like the structure of the original article, so I think keeping this similar with your edits would be beneficial. It is organized and easy to follow. The images appear to be relevant. I'm not sure of your plans for future edits, but my main suggestion right now is to make the language less "wordy" than it is now. Also, since the article refers to climate change and its relationship to CCN numbers, it might be worthwhile to look into more current articles discussing these two topics. Although the sources linked seem to be relatively recent, I'm sure that there is even more current information regarding climate change that could be used to support the article. Looking forward to seeing your finished edits!