User talk:Kroberts73/sandbox

Oasis effect peer review
I am reviewing the content from your sandbox because I read in the article evaluation on your article's talk page that you plan to start writing the article from scratch.

Lead Section: The lead section does a good job of conveying the importance of the oasis effect and the potential benefits that it can have on urban planning. It gives a good definition, though the wording is somewhat confusing. I would suggest removing the wikilink for "micro/meso-climatic" in the beginning of the definition, as this distinction so early in the article is a bit confusing for the reader. The wording of the definition is also difficult to interpret. I might suggest rewording it to say that the oasis effect is the "local cooling effect due to evaporation or evapotranspiration of a water source or plant life in an otherwise dry area." This way, redundancy is eliminated and the reader is able to better understand what the oasis effect actually is.

Structure: The article is split into very logical, appropriate sections. However, I suggest adding some transition words so that there are fewer short sentences, as this hinders understanding and the linking of ideas for the reader. It is also a little difficult to understand the sentences that begin "this takes/is evident/ occurs...etc." It would flow a little better and be more comprehendible if these sentences were edited to say "evaporation takes/warming occurs because...," so that the reader is sure of exactly what you are referring to in each sentence.

Balance of Coverage: The length of your sections is appropriate for the importance represented by each section (ie. the urban planning section is the longest because it is the most relevant application of the oasis effect). Most everything keeps on topic of the oasis effect. There is one part at the end of the urban planning section that discusses the albedos of new city building materials that seems to stretch the boundary of relevance. Also, the article neglects to address any specific viewpoints on the oasis effect and whether or not any groups are in favor of/opposed to the implementation of the oasis effect in urban planning (if such groups exist).

Neutral Content: The article does a good job of maintaining neutrality on the subject of the oasis effect. In the lead section, the article states that the oasis effect can make cities more "habitable and comfortable," which slightly implies that cities are not habitable or less-comfortable now. I might suggest replacing this wording by saying something about how the oasis effect can decrease the impact or strength of the urban heat island phenomena instead.Ahandley (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Sources: All of the sources seem to be relevant to the topic of the oasis effect and its implications for local climate differences. The first and second sources are cited much more than the remaining four, but I think this is just because these articles give more information on the broad topic of the oasis effect rather than its application in urban environments. There is a lack of citation in the urban planning section when the article discusses the effect of the oasis effect and plant life and parks on urban climates. Though the principles that support these statements were presented and cited previously in the article, I think it is still important to attribute these thoughts to the journals that support them.Ahandley (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)