User talk:Ldonahue7/sandbox

Hayden's Peer Review
Note: this article was actively being edited recently before the peer review (11/17), so it may have been updated since.

Lead Section

The lead for this article is concise and covers the main idea of the topic. The concept is relatively simple, so I think the decision to leave the specific wavelength ranges out of the lead was correct so the reader can grasp the idea before having numbers thrown at them. That being said, I think some rewording could further clarify the idea. I think it should be specified that the topic deals in ranges of wavelengths rather than just wavelengths and calling it "infrared light" instead of "infrared energy" would be a bit clearer to a layperson. I also think it might benefit to describe the effect of this absorption, i.e. that those wavelengths don't reach the surface.

Structure

This article is very informative and has great details, but there is a lack of distinct sections to separate the ideas. These could take the form of both headers and transition phrases. However, I think the general ordering of ideas is correct. The article further expands on the concept before getting into the specific wavelength ranges. It closes with a broader perspective that may point readers to other related topics, which I think is a good choice. One thing that I do think needs to be reordered is the history (the person who discovered it and how). This should be put it in its own section, probably near the end, rather than being up with the expanded description.

Balance of Coverage

This concept doesn't leave much up for debate (the science is clear and well shown with the provided images), so there are not really alternative viewpoints to consider. However, there are some parts of this article that I do not think need to be included. The first paragraph gives a vague, metaphor-y description of why they are called Water Vapor Windows. There's not anything objectively wrong with it, but this sentence is not really based on fact and does not sound like Wikipedia. Furthermore, this article expands quite a lot (including some calculations) on how Water Vapor Windows contribute to the Greenhouse Effect, when instead I think readers should just be pointed to that article if that's what they're looking for (it is already included in the See Also). Overall, this article covers a relatively simple concept with broad implications, so I think it should be kept pretty concise with a hefty See Also section.

Neutral Content

This article is written with a completely neutral viewpoint and reflects no bias or other conflict of interest. However, some of the language could be a bit more formal. Different ideas are presented in succession and the focus of the article is somewhat lost at times. This is mainly an issue with structuring however, as I think a clearer separation of ideas would pretty much entirely fix the issue and make it more obvious what sections are truly needed.

Reliable Sources

This article cites several reliable sources, and I think the sources themselves cover pretty much everything related to the topic. Almost every sentence cites a source, and each citation lines up with what was stated. The citations are also well distributed across the sources, which strengthens the credibility of the article However, there are many formatting issues with the actual Wikipedia citations that make some of the citations unclear and make it more difficult to read. These become more present near the end at the article. There is also a sentence that uses "according to" followed by an inline APA citation, which defeats the purpose of the bibliography. Similarly, the last sentence describes the experiment being cited rather than just stating its conclusion with a citation. HaydenRHN (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)