User talk:DaltonPouliot/Modern Maximum

Alyssa's Peer Review
Lead Section: The lead section has a sentence of strong interest, but gives leaves room for questions. Namely, what is the modern maximum? Also, the lead sentence doesn't need to be repeated in the body of the article so there is no repetition. However, the sentence used is a good overview of what the article discusses.

Structure: The article could probably benefit from being split into two sections, one on what the Modern maximum is and one on the effect on the climate it has. This would likely help with the readability of the article. The large scale structure of the information currently in the article is done well, and keeping that would be good. I would review some of the esenteencce structure in the article, as three are some sentences that read like there will be more information given afterwards, however none ever is. (Looking again, I see what is already written on the topic does cover what the modern maximum is, however keeping in mind sections and formatting will still be good when combining what you've written with thee rest of the information)

Balanced coverage: The information covered mostly seems balanced. One area that could use a different point of view or option shown is at the end of the article, "one-way scientists have recorded" is he start of an idea, however no counter options to this one are given. Adding information on other way scientists could get the data they need could be beneficial. Otherwise, this wording likely needs to be changed.

Neutral content: The content of this article is written neutrally.

Reliable Sources: Both sources used are reliable sources. the article does rely on one source much more than the other, so making sure information from both articles is used well could be beneficial. Adell6 (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)