User talk:Eskibinski/Carbon dioxide flooding

Peer review
Lead Section

The first sentence is clear and informative, making it a strong lead. I see how the next two sentences give some motivation for why CO2 flooding is a significant topic, but they seem a bit too detailed, and those specific places aren’t super relevant to the rest of the article. Perhaps this information could be condensed/simplified to keep the lead section as more of an overview. Alternatively, these sentences could be kept but moved out of the lead. It also may be useful to add a bit to the lead that hints at what aspects of CO2 flooding the article will be talking about (i.e. methods/pros and cons).

Structure

I think article organization could be a little clearer if the paragraphs after the 1st lead paragraph were under a separate header, potentially like “Purpose” or something similar as it seems most of this answers the why do we have CO2 flooding question. Additionally, at least some of the information here also seems like it fits in the “Methods” section, so there may be room for improved separation of info. Good job on the “Pros and Cons” section!

Coverage

Overall, the information in the article seems to cover information proportionally to its relevance. The article is mostly composed of why we have CO2 flooding and how it works, with a full section on pros and cons. This seems like perfect article composition! With the reorganization recommended in the previous comment, I think this good coverage would be easier to see visually. No sections are unnecessary or off-topic. Neutral content

Everything is presented in a neutral tone, and the article does a great job of presenting the pros and cons in an informative, rather than persuasive, manner. This is especially notable surrounding hot topics like global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. “Advertising” was a great edit in regards to tone. This isn’t a neutral content comment, but it may be better to reword the sentence in the first paragraph of the pros and cons section to remove “you”, just to keep language more formal and make sure to double check all the 2s are subscripted.

Sources

Great job on the sources! There are no unreliable sources or specific research reports. All sources are trustworthy overviews that are in line with Wikipedia source expectations. Some sentences do not have citations and seem like they should. For example, “This method reduces the chances of unwanted gas breaks, and increased amount of oil recovered as opposed to the more common CO2 injection water alternating gas process (WAG).” should have a source. It’s completely fine to have a few sentences in a row where you are citing the same source. Other sentences like “Of course, all methods of sourcing CO2 for CO2 flooding have the possibility for accidental release of CO2, resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions.” might be okay not having a citation as this is common sense from what is written before it, but it never hurts to add one if you can find one!

Green desert scrub (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)