User talk:Ajohnson439/sandbox

Hey, Abby.

First off: Great job. I stumbled into Methane's talk page and things were getting pretty spicy; still, I think all your edits are clear and valid so I don't think you'll have too many problems.

[Lead section:] I agree that the intro sentence to the article was already fine, and like what you've added to the second header paragraph. There's a space missing between your link to 'radiative forcing' and 'from' in the 4th sentence of the second paragraph. I liked what you added about the world's largest CH4 reservoir, and think this could be a good chance to link to the 'methane clathrate' wikipedia page (Methane_clathrate) (I saw that you do link it later in the article, but I'm sure there are lots of people who only read the first blurb).

[Article structure:] It looks like you kept most of the original article's structure, which is fine since it was in good shape. It looks like the original article also had a lot of awkward parenthetical statements that were kept in but are unusual for the usual tone of Wikipedia articles. For example, the first sentence of 'Geological Routes' ends with "(ii) inorganic (abiotic, meaning non-living)", where the 'meaning non-living' part seems a little unnecessary since it links to the definition right in the sentence. If rewritten to incorporate in necessary parts of parenthetical statements and kicking out the unnecessary bits, I think it could make the article a lot clearer. In many ways, it looks like the original author(s) just wanted to include A LOT of information which may be more than is necessary to get the point across. The paragraph for 'Geological routes' uses the term "economical" in the third sentence, when it should probably be "economic" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/economic-or-economical).

[Article balance of coverage:] I think your article has pretty fair coverage, with equal treatment of abiotic and biotic origins. I think it could be cool if you could find ways to feed in from one section to another in reference to help dig in the point of the methane cycle. I think there's someone else making a methane cycle figure (?) so that would also help clear up the cycling aspect, but the sections at current read to be fairly succinct instead of interconnected.

[Neutral content:] I think overall the neutral tone is in pretty good shape. Some of the diction is choppy (see my above note about parenthetical statement overusage), but this could also be the cost of being succinct and clear. At current, there's little mention of the industrial/economic use of methane,w which I think could help buil a fairer portrayal of what all we know about methane and its human uses, which could help pul it a bit from a strictly environmental/research perspective. Overall, the article does a great job to portray methane objectively.

[Reliability/relevance:] You added in some great additional references that really helped beef up the article and make it more reliable. I don't really have any notes to give here, since adding in any more references without additional text portions may make it too dense of an article to read.

Lingering questions: Where does your text about the methane clathrates go?

Again, this is great and I've done my best to nit-pick in the hopes it's constructive. Great job. Methane is weird.

Nuts4squirrels (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)