User talk:LDabbas/sandbox

Chloe Dieu peer review
It seems like you have a good outline for the article. One thing I would comment on is that make sure your writing is neutral.

George Kim peer review
This will be in sections.

For section 1 (Scale of CCS to achieve climate change mitigation) Outline seems good. I am curious as to why you plan to talk about US NDC in particular, however. Is this going to be a US specific thing or a global thing in scope? (Also, remember to define NDC).

For section 2 (CCS and net zero emissions) There are some minor grammatical errors here that I am sure will be fixed in the final article, but just calling that to your attention. I feel like the very specific statistic of 138% more could use some more dressing up and explanation. I also think that the last paragraph talking about electrolysis is also a bit out of the blue. Maybe consider adding more information and more uses for the energy than just electrolysis.

For section 3 (CCS and 2.0) This is a good section. I think in order to help someone that isn't too familiar with this topic, you should consider adding a snippet about what lowering GHG by 7 Gt or however much looks like in terms of something they would understand. For example, say that 'this is equivalent to x amount of cars being taken off the road in the US considering that each car would have gone an average of y miles'). Just something to help put it all into perspective because we are dealing with an enormous scale with this topic.

For section 4 (CCS and below 2.0) I think that this would be a good opportunity to talk about negative emission and how it is necessary not only in the 2.0 scenario, but the below 2.0 scenario as well. I think it would be eye-awakening to talk about what is expected to be done in 2040 or whenever the time scale is and what is being done right now. For example, say something like (x% of all fossil fuel plants need to have some form of CCS by 20XX, and currently y% have CCS currently). This can go in any of the sections now that I think about it.

In conclusion, outline looks pretty solid. I would try to have some more facts that would affect the layman more because they would gain the most from reading these wikipedia articles. Also, it might drive them into action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgk00 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Lujain Al-Dabbas Article evaluation exercise (week 9 milestone): NASA
This article seems very comprehensive. The tone appears to be neutral and not bias is detectable in the content nor the listed citations. Article was recently and regularly updated with an active talk page.LDabbas (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)