User talk:Kaddington6/sandbox

== Kaddington6's peer review ==

Lead Section The overview provides from whom and where the Brewer-Dobson circulation comes from and the year the theory was proposed. Majority of terminology is referenced to an additional Wikipedia article. The introduction does explain what the circulation is driven by, however it needs to touch more on the information that is to come following the overview. It would be good to state there are 5 circulation models that are involved in the Brewer-Dobson circulation.

Structure There are many sections to the article which attempts to keep everything cohesive yet organized. The information content does not overlap in sections. There is a "Models" section that is bolded, yet it is hard to tell, instead make this outline a "heading" to clearly state the article will now mention models that speculate patterns of circulation. The content under under "Models" does not seem to add to the article, the heading should prepare the reader to examine multiple models relating to the main subject of the article and why they are important. To better choreograph the article, the models could be categorized in order of importance or influence to the Brewer-Dobson circulation. To make the article easier to read, sentences should be crafted well and not leave cliffhanging ideas(often seen in the last sentence of each section).

Balance of Coverage Each section's length is equal to its importance relative to the article's subject. The length of each section remains fairly consistent and does not seem rely heavily on one section over another. Although the consistency of reference to other Wikipedia links is concerning. There are many accredited scientists mentioned, and it would be good to reference them. In addition to this, words like "atmospheric", "circulation", "thermodynamic equation", or "eddy transport" should be referenced if applicable. The coverage is good, but there are many terms that need explanation consistently throughout the article for the general audience to understand. Using more concise and clear language could help with this matter.

Neutral Content While some sections remains fairly neutral, there is verbiage in the overview and "Models" heading that implicates the author's standpoint of bias. The statement in the "Models" section juxtapositions the article as a whole and this should be refrained from. Words like "since", "even though", "generally", and "crucial" should be avoided because they implicate bias. The article seems to insinuate negative attributes of the subject matter.

Reliable Sources The references are correctly cited and both are used throughout the entirety of the article. The statements in the article are connected to reliable sources. The statements are referenced to the sources well, but they mainly rely on source one. To help fix this problem, more information could be added throughout the sections that supports source two a little bit more. KyleeGraham20 (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)