User talk:Cjenkins67/sandbox

Will have to do a great deal of research as to how hydrometeorology works, and from there I will have to structure the article based on the information I learn. Should look for information in library about topic to begin research.Cjenkins67 (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Lead Section Overall, the lead section is clear and concise, but it left me wanting to know a bit more about hydrometeorology upon first reading the article. The opening sentence is written in a manner that is easy to understand with no elaborate or overly-scientific vocabulary. However, the first sentence should describe the concept/field of hydrometeorology in greater detail so that a reader who is looking at the article can grasp the core concept of hydrometeorology and theoretically read no more of the article. Additionally, the lead section should give a little more of an overview of the article as a whole. It can serve as a skeleton around which you build the rest of your article. From my understanding, the section that deals with the meteorologists and hydrometeorologists working together in the same building is not relevant to the scope of the article as a whole. The lead section isn’t bogged down in detail, which makes it approachable; however, after reading just this section, I don’t feel that I have a good idea of what hydrometeorology is.

Structure The structure of the article is very logical. The two sections in the body are broken up effectively, and I wouldn’t suggest moving them around or arranging them in another way. One way to potentially improve the body section is to divide up the two sections under their own headers, as opposed to one umbrella “Body” header. Additionally, a bit more information could be added to the body paragraphs to bulk up the structure of the article and make the headings a bit more substantial.

Balance of Coverage Overall, the article seems balanced, and everything in the article is on-topic and relevant. The sections of the article so far are the same length, so they hold the same amount of importance. However, it seems that the significance of research and development in hydrometeorology is greater than the significance of urban hydrometeorology, so this section should be longer to reflect that difference. Since the sections are all the same length though, it is difficult to select the distinguishing factor as to what makes hydrometeorology deserving of its own Wikipedia page. The article could present more points of view, either through examples or various definitions of hydrometeorology. How does the process differ in different countries (if at all)?

Neutral Content This article does a good job of presenting a neutral point of view; there is nothing in the article that could potentially sway me to one point of view or another. Since hydrometeorology is a neutral subject to begin with, there are no statement that could potentially reveal a preference. The information is presented in a straightforward manner with no opinionated or emotionally charged statements. However, to improve the content, more aspects of the topic could be presented, such as what different countries are doing with hydrometeorology and how different countries have used hydrometeorology to react to natural disasters.

Reliable Sources All the references are reliable, as they come from scientific journals. The statements in the paper are attributed to a variety of sources, not just one or two which makes it a more trustworthy article. I learned from this and am planning to implement this in my own Wikipedia article. For the most part, the factual statements have sources attached, and they all appear to be referenced accurately. My suggestion is to delve into the sources more. It is okay to have multiple sentences of information from the same source because that creates a better understanding of the point of information.

Hlevy8 (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)