User:Patkeo6/Christian Doppler/EthanIAm16 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Patkeo6, Ssegtf


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patkeo6/Christian_Doppler?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Christian Doppler

Evaluate the drafted changes
It looks like the original article is missing a good amount of clarification on Doppler's methods and experiments, especially since the man was so important to the world of astronomy. It looks as if this has been addressed through the added clarification on the first recorded instance of the doppler effect, although I believe even more clarification could help, maybe even a full bolded section on his work on the doppler effect, which appears to be only mentioned once in a small section in the original article.

The first added section looks to be a bit tricky to navigate, as it appears to combine both the concept of stars having their own color and the idea that if stars are moving at 136,000 km per second they will not be visible to the human eye. A more clear explanation of this and how it relates to what Doppler believed might help in this case. Also, describing what a person may or may not have believed is a little tricky, especially if they aren't alive to speak their piece, so multiple reputable sources backing up this claim would be fantastic.

The sources used appear to be recent secondary sources, with the most recent being from 2020.

Looking at the original article, a general restructuring may be in order, considering that it contains no clear sections and is pitifully small for how important Doppler was. There's also the weird section on Doppler's name, which could be incorporated into a larger section or placed underneath the biography section, but it certainly doesn't need its own heading for how small of a section it is. The new additions certainly help the problem with how barren it is, but it may only act as a band aid to the actual problem. A good clean-up of the article is definitely necessary.

Overall, the additions so far appear good, and with the addition of more sources and clarification I believe this can go into the main article. Additional organization may be needed, including clearing out what the original article and the addition both include and making sure that the flow of the article is preserved. The added additions help describe where the doppler effect was first observed and help clear up what Doppler actually believed versus what is actually true.

Response to Peer Review

The peer reviews were helpful and helped guide as to what changes I am going to make to my article additions. These changes include making my existing additions more clear, backing up some of my additions with more sources, and restructuring the existing article in order to have a better flow. I was initially planning on restructuring the article to include a section of his legacy that would go after his biography section. The peer review also suggested that we integrate the last section of the article, addressing confusions about his name, with the biography section. I think this would be a good edit to the article, and I'll try to incorporate into my changes.