User:Trentag0n/Prebiotic atmosphere/Carleydf Peer Review

Hey Trent! Below is my peer review. Great job!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Trentag0n


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Trentag0n/Prebiotic atmosphere


 * 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? - This is a new article, so the Lead is brand new. The Lead adequately reflects the content discussed in the article body.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - I thought the introductory sentence was perfect. Short, sweet, and to the point!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - Yes. Each sentence can be directly linked to a section in the article body. Each section gets no more than a three sentence summary in the lead. I will add that I thought the sentence on CO2, N2, and O2 needed a reference. Additionally, I'm a little confused about how the "prebiotic atmosphere may facilitate or inhibit prebiotic chemistry." Isn't chemistry always happening? Does prebiotic chemistry refer to specific reactions?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - No, the Lead brushes over every topic covered in the article body.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - I would describe the Lead as concise. Just reading the Lead, I feel confident that I know the key highlights, importance, and differences of the prebiotic atmosphere compared to after life formed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - I think that the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - The content is up-to-date. The sources that supply the content mainly come from the 2000s up to more recent content in the 2020s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I'm wondering if there had been any studies on the dynamics of the prebiotic atmosphere. Composition and formation is only one aspect to that. I understand if there isn't any literature on this! I additionally thought that the "relationship to the origin of life" section was hard to read, mainly because it is unclear how the Earth transitioned from a prebiotic to postbiotic atmosphere. Again I have a question about what prebiotic chemistry means and many different arguments/hypotheses are introduced one right after the other. Lastly, I think the "other gases" section doesn't need to be its own section and instead summarized by a sentence in the introduction to the "Atmospheric Composition" section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No, but planetary atmospheres topics are needing to be written.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - Mostly. There is one sentence in the "Hydrogen and reduced gases" section stating that reduced species "probably played a major role in prebiotic chemistry" with no citation that I think leads the reader one way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - One thing I noticed in the article was the phrase "oldest consensus-accepted evidence." What is the evidence and why is it so convincing?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - I think there are a fair share of different viewpoints displayed in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - I don't think the content added attempts to persuade the reader one way or another. Many sentences use the word "may" and doesn't imply that one hypothesis is superior to the others.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - There are many secondary sources of information, but I felt the "Oxygen" section was lacking in citations describing the formation and destruction of oxygen (past the fourth sentence).
 * 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, the sources are thorough and they are numerous.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - The authors are racially diverse and include both men and women. I'm unsure if historically marginalized individuals were used as sources.
 * 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.) - It seems like all different forms of sources are employed in this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes, the links work. However, many sources need edits in their format. There are frequent "Check date values in:" and "no-break space character in" notifications that need addressing.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - I believe the content is extremely well-written. My only suggestion is to look at the "Relationship to the Origin of Life" section again.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - This isn't necessarily grammar, but in the Wikipedia articles I've read, the citations in the article go after punctuation.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - I think the content is well-organized. Each section discusses its own topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - I don't think the image added to the article enhances the understanding of the topic. It is a picture of Earth in a postbiotic time which is not the time period being discussed in the article. I think this image should be removed.
 * Are images well-captioned? - While I don't think the image is appropriate for the article, I think the caption is nice. It is succinct and clear.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - Yes, the image is in the public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - Yes, the image is placed right next to the Lead which frames it quite nicely.

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? - There are multiple first sources and secondary sources that are indeed independent of the subject. Things like SciPop articles and fact sheets released by governmental agencies are frequently refefred to.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? - The list of sources is quite exhaustive (51!) and to my knowledge accurately represents all available literature 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? - I've looked through a few potentially similar articles and it doesn't seem like anything needs to be changed.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? - I'm unsure if this article is linked to within different articles to improve its discoverability, but this would be a good last thing to do before submitting! Suggestions are within pages on Earth's atmosphere, Earth's natural history, etc.

Other Notes I Wrote Down While Reading Your Article

 * Is there a different word you can use besides sequestered? Or perhaps you can link a different Wikipedia article to it.
 * In the Environmental Context section, Earth is given a Wiki link but was mentioned in the lead earlier, wheras solar nebula should be linked. Additionally, magma ocean was already Wiki linked to previously
 * “For example, the famous Miller-Urey experiment in which prebiotic chemicals were synthesized in a hypothetical prebiotic environment had to make assumptions about what compounds were present in the atmosphere” what made the prebiotic chemicals important? Weren’t there already prebiotic chemicals?
 * “Because the sun was significantly dimmer at early times, it has been proposed that the carbonate-silicate cycle would cause higher levels of carbon dioxide on early Earth in order to keep the surface temperature relatively high.” This statement doesn’t follow for me. Are cooler temps slowing the drawdown of CO2?
 * “studies generally indicate that the prebiotic atmosphere…” no citation

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - The article has added a whole new body of work to the Wikipedia database.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The content covers a variety of aspects related to the prebiotic atmosphere that go into just enough detail and provide numerous sources to back it up.
 * How can the content added be improved? - The content can be improved by removing the "Relationship to the origin of life" section and putting the "other gases" section in the atmospheric composition introduction. The sources also need to be fixed with dates (mentioned earlier). If you just did or considered these things, this article would be ready to be posted to Wikipedia! Great job with this article!

-Carley