User talk:BaileyLin/Marsh gas

Peer Review: The lead section was a great start to the article, there were some minor grammatical errors, such as "the surface of the marshes, swamps and bogs is..." The "is" should be "are." There were a couple of vocabulary words that should be linked, for example, ebullition. Think of word linking from the point of view, if someone has zero knowledge of the subject would they be able to know what that is. The last thing is a little of restructuring sentences could help with clarity. There are just some sentences that I stumbled on and had to reread in order to understand. The balance of coverage is a little off. The article is really focused on methane gas, which is fine since it's the main gas discussed when the term marsh gas is used. The reason it feels off is that other gases were mentioned in the lead section but never discussed again. If the article starts out saying marsh gas is a mixture of the following gasses then all the gasses should be talked about in some manner. The other gases can be brief paragraphs but there should be some elaboration as to what they are, how they are formed, and how they contribute to marsh gas. The article structure is good. There is a nice flow to it, going from describing what marsh gasses are to the formation of the gasses, to how the gasses are released, then ending with how it impacts the environment. This gives a nice flow to the article and I believe what you learn from the previous section will help build upon the next section. Overall really nicely laid out. The content is neutral for the parts that are written. The information is very factual and bare-bones information, just what your neutrality going into environmental impact. Stick to things that are proven not suggested. The only bias found is the sole focus on methane gas. Going back to if you mention that it's a mixture of gasses then there should be parts on all the gases that are included in the mixture. It's okay to have a focus on methane gas especially if it is explained why methane should be the focus. The biggest issue with the sources is the lack of citations. In the article, there are 3 sources that are good sources, the issue is for the whole article there are only 2 citations. In this setting, it's almost better to over-cite than under-cite. This article would need a lot of fact-checking because there is a huge lack of citations. The sources themselves are good and reliable, but there could be more articles that are simple reviews of marsh gases as a whole instead of specific gases found in the environment. I think one article that was along the lines of review of marsh gases would fit nicely and add more generalization to the article instead of the page just really being about methane gas. Overall this article has a very good foundation laid and has such a great potential to grow. Keep up the good work!

TriciaAwald (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)