User talk:Cguterman6/Airshed

Peer Review
Lead Section

The lead sentence does a good job of defining what an airshed is and introducing some of the ways it can affect the local environment. However, I feel that the lead could be improved in a few ways. It might help to move the paragraph at the end of the lead ("The upwind airshed... significant sources of pollutants") to another section in the article to keep the lead concise. Aside from that, a bit more detail (with citations) about how an airshed forms from an air mass' movement and how airsheds are delineated could help readers understand the topics more before delving into the article body. Lastly, moving the first paragraph's last sentence ("Airborne chemicals... in the area") to another section or stating that it is an example of the environmental impacts of airsheds can help better organize the article/strengthen the lead's overview. The lead covers all portions of the article equally, although I feel that some topics the lead touches on are not present in the article body (e.g. environmental impacts of airsheds, how airsheds are defined/delineated). Overall, though, the lead is great, providing important information and a non-redundant overview of the article content.

Structure

I think that you could edit the sections in your article to be more wide-ranging so you can cover lots of information in broad sections. Sections on the environmental impacts of airsheds, mechanics of airsheds, and how airsheds are defined/delineated (broader than just a section devoted to one definition method, UAM) might help organize the article's content. I am not sure if your content could be arranged chronologically.

Balanced Coverage

This topic seems relatively uncontroversial, and your article does a great job at representing all scientific perspectives on the topic. I do feel that the section lengths might be a bit short given the importance of environmental impacts and delineation methods to airsheds. OF course, I am just assuming these things are important; if the study of airsheds is still new or there is not much literature on either topic, then the sections seem to be the right length and balanced with each other. There are also no unnecessary statements in the article - every sentence provides new and useful information (though some sentences could be expanded to provide a bit more).

Neutral Content

Your article also does a great job of retaining a neutral point of view. I do think that, in order to be completely neutral, you should include airshed definitions/delineations for other countries as well (as opposed to just the US' modeling and definition techniques). These links by the Alberta Airsheds Council and World Bank might help you get started.

Reliable Sources

Every source currently in the article is from a textbook or peer-reviewed journal, so great work there too! Each reference only supports a few sentences at most, so none are relied on too heavily either. That said, a few more sources, such as one that supports the first sentence's definition of airshed and one that directly shows how airshed boundaries are defined could help strengthen the uncited statements in the first paragraph.

General

Overall, you have a great start to your article! I love the picture you included as well. I think the most important edits you could make would be to add new, more general sections to the article and add some more citations to various parts of the article. One thing I will change in my article because of yours is making sure that my sources and references are from multiple nations so that I can make my article more neutral. Great work, and I look forward to reading your final article!

Varmint256 (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)