User talk:Adiering3/Atmospheric methane

Ethan's Peer Review
Lead Section: For the "Natural sources of atmospheric methane" subsection, the first sentence of the lead section gives a concise, all-encompassing definition for the topic, telling the audience exactly what a natural source of atmospheric methane is. The rest of the lead section does a good job at describing what will be included in the following paragraphs, including which of the following paragraphs are related to each other (i.e. the methanogenesis paragraph is related to the "aquatic ecosystems" and "animals" paragraphs). This reflects the important information in the subsection without emphasizing any one topic too heavily. One change I would recommend is altering the second sentence of the lead section to reflect the rest of the sentence's content. This sentence begins with "Several main processes..." but only lists one of the main processes (methanogenesis), which may confuse the reader. Also, since most of the topics are included in the lead section, I would also consider mentioning the "wetlands" and "plants" paragraphs.

Structure: The added paragraphs are organized well, sequentially following the lead section in the order they are listed in. The "aquatic ecosystems" paragraph follows the preceding "methanogenesis" paragraph well, and the "permafrost" paragraph is appropriately placed after the "methane clathrates" paragraph that it refers to.

Balanced Coverage: Using multiple paragraphs to cover permafrost is apt, as it is a well-documented source of atmospheric methane that is especially relevant in recent years. Within the permafrost paragraphs, multiple viewpoints are presented for projections on how permafrost emission may progress in the future, giving a holistic coverage of the topic (this is something I will draw from for my article as well). The "aquatic ecosystems" paragraph could use a bit more detail, as it is a very large source of atmospheric methane and is well-documented in scientific literature. That being said, the information currently in the paragraph is solid and provides a good starting point for further explanation.

Neutral Content: The contributions to the article are all very neutral, with no indication of a certain perspective being taken. There are no instances where a positive or negative connotation is applied to a statement, and specific research is referenced whenever a new piece of information is presented. Also, when information in the article has a conflicting viewpoint, both views are well documented without a bias towards either views.

Reliable Sources: All of the added sources are taken from peer reviewed journal articles and most of which are published by very reputable journals (Science, Nature, etc.) The variety of resources is also noteworthy, as each major piece of information is taken from a separate source, giving the article a complete, well-documented feel. All the information ties to the representative citation well, and there is no confusion when determining which source relates to each piece of information.

Ethan Losasso (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)