User talk:HaydenRHN/Non-attainment area

Alex's Peer Review
Lead Section:

Overall, I think the lead section does a great job summarizing what a non-attainment area is even for someone who is completely new to the topic. However one thing I would suggest is directly including the list of pollutants in the lead section (like exactly as you did in the first sentence of the “Classification” section; I would just cut that list and move it up) rather than later in the article because whoever is looking up what a non-attainment area is almost certainly wants to know which specific pollutants it covers, thus making it important enough (in my opinion) to include directly in the lead section.

Structure:

The article’s structure, with its two distinct sections “Classification” and “Restoration,” adequately separates the articles information into readable and understandable chunks. I would say, though, that the “Restoration” section is not immediately obvious what it is about with the section name alone, and when reading the section it does not become fully apparent until the second paragraph. It might be better just to name the section “Designation” since the first paragraph talks about the EPA designating places as non-attainment areas and the second talks about (what I assume is the “restoration” part) the process of getting designated back as just an attainment area.

Coverage:

The article provides a fair and balanced coverage of the topic. Although I do think there could be more details added about the specifics of certain things mentioned in the article such as listing updated information on the current number of areas listed as non-attainment areas in the U.S., as well as what the EPA does (if anything) to punish areas that either don’t use their “three years” provided “to develop plans for the area to attain the standards” or simply never choose to implement said plans. Or if there is any past controversy or failure of implementation. But given how niche the article topic is, I think you have done a good job broadly hitting all the important parts.

Content Neutrality:

Overall, I think the article maintains a very neutral tone and doesn’t have any clear reflection of the author’s biases. The only thing that would put the nail in the coffin neutrality-wise is if you included any controversy regarding the topic so that there are at least some opposing opinions, but given what the topic is there might not even be any.

Source Reliability:

All four sources cited in the article seem to be from very credible and reliable sources. Although the first source is used a disproportionate amount of times compared to the other sources, it is a government data catalog listing data directly from the EPA, the government organization that created and officially designates the term “non-attainment” area, so I think it is entirely justified using it that many times.

Blueflamelord (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)