User talk:Carson Clements/sandbox

Sloan's Peer Review
1) Lead section Could elaborate a little about what an El Nino event is. By mentioning it is exceptionally strong, the lead does give the reader a good idea of why the topic is important. It could summarize the article more thoroughly by adding a comment about the content that focuses on the impacts of the El Nino event.

2) Structure I think the article is organized quite sensibly. A suggestion could be that the effects of the event could be under one heading and sections could be added about the causes of the strength of this event, how strength of an event is determined, the timeline of the event (when the hurricanes/species deaths were and past strong events, if this information is available. The second paragraph flows more nicely than the first, which could flow just as nicely with some elaboration.

3) Coverage The coverage seems to be balanced. Some suggestions for additions would be to add more about what made it such a strong event, how often exceptionally strong events occur, and what specifically caused the economic impact to be so high (was it the flooding or species death, etc) I think it may also be worth mentioning how the level of strength of an El Nino event is calculated, and how this particular event was named one of the strongest.

4) Content Seems like the page sheds a negative light on the 1982-83 El Nino event, however it did cause many issues, so this article would still be classified as neutral content, especially because it is backed up by neutral sources.

5) Sources Most statements are cited from reliable sources, and most statements are connected to a reference. The article has a wide variety of sources not used more than once, and all statements seem to be accurately presented from their listed sources

1. What does the article do well? I think the article does a good job of outlining the lasting impacts of the 1982-83 El Nino event. The information that is included seems to be backed up well from a variety of reputable sources. I appreciate that the author took the articles/journals they used for research and then looked elsewhere to deepen their knowledge of certain aspects (such as the research into the Dermarestia tropica). I like the box at the bottom that outlines major El Nino events.

2. What changes would you suggest? The lead sentence could be elaborated on a little so that the average uninformed reader could have a clear understanding of what an El Nino event is without having to go elsewhere. The article itself could be expanded to encompass a more holistic view of the event, rather than focusing on the impacts, which are important but do not encompass all of what the 1982-1983 El Nino event is. I am not sure if words such as “winter” need to by hyperlinked to their respective Wikipedia pages; deleting some of these linked may help a confused reader to only find links to other pages that would specifically help them further their knowledge of El Nino events.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think just expanding on other aspects of the event could help enormously, and would be the main suggestion I have for this article.

Thanks! Shodges34 (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)