User talk:Elopez83/sandbox

Peer Review
The lead is very clear and concise and gives a simple and understandable definition of the topic of the article. After reading the article, the lead does not mention any of the more specific details and topics of atmospheric super rotation that are discussed in further detail in the article.

The overall structure of the article is well-organized, and the topics are not joined together, which makes each topic way easier to read and understand. The order of the topics could be fixed, however. The last paragraph about the dynamics of super rotation could be pushed to the front of the article to give the reader a better understanding of the topic before giving examples. Additionally, the paragraph about Jupiter could be pushed up one paragraph, for the first paragraph focuses mainly on planets other than Earth. This would help the topic flow better.

The article does not have unnecessary information. You should go more in depth in the Earth's paragraph since there is not that much information given in that paragraph in comparison to the other paragraphs. Additionally, doing this would add a significant viewpoint that is missing, and more detail about that topic would convince the reader that this topic could be useful in our lives if climate change could increase atmospheric super rotation.

The article remains neutral throughout, and there is no attempt to persuade the reader into any opinions.

This article relies mainly on journal articles and scholarly sources, and these sources are used pretty evenly across the article. The information from these sources is accurate. Ldonahue7 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)