User talk:Lpf028/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Peer Review
International Arctic Science Committee

-Introduction to the draft article is descriptive and easy to follow. The language is appropriately neutral though there may be an overload of information. It's unclear how this introduction would carry over into the actual article as it pertains specifically to the drafting process.

-Information could be further sectioned off; "Working Groups" could be sub-divided into specifics of each group's functions in the Committee. This would organize the ideas further though the information itself is presented in a very coherent manner.

-Relevant and important information should be added and/or elaborated upon pertaining to the research and findings of the involved scientists as well as more information on the involved parties.

-Where are they located? Who is involved? Are there any supporting organizations or non-profits affiliated with the work of the IASC?

-IASC is not a reliable source for information as it is self-published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacdy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thalia's Review
Great job on your work so far, l can see that you put a lot of work in your draft. Just a few issues that l noticed though. The formatting as had been mentioned earlier might need to be revised. If you could guide the reader a bit more by adding titles and subtitles. Starting with a content box would be great so that if the reader has a particular section they want to focus on then they can do so. Aswell, if you can make the notes as short and precise as possible, and if you will elaborate with paragraphs on some sections please put sub headings. Wiki links could be great aswell for some words or phrases where it is applicable because some of the words are not exactly common knowledge to some readers who have no idea of the topic at hand. The refences and sources cited are working which is great but just be careful on how they are presented. Overally good work so far, l can tell a lot of time and effort was put into this draft. Can't wait to read your final article!! (Thalia101 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC))

Leo's Response
Thank you, everyone, for the reviews. I greatly appreciate the time it took for you to analyze my work. I will take your recommendations into account when I begin to rework this draft. Best regards Lpf028 (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft Review
I have a few brief notes on how you could improve this draft from its current state.

Under Atmosphere Working Group:

"...what can be understood and even the predictability of what may transpire if the Arctic were to disappear" is an awkward sentence. What is being understood? The global climate's effect on the Arctic? The prediction of the Arctic ice cap disappearing? The word "even" in this context seems inappropriate. I recommend something akin to this, rewording the part enclosed in parentheses based on your knowledge: "This working group is primarily concerned with how the Arctic is responding to the current global climate, (and what can be understood), and predicting what may transpire if the Arctic were to disappear

Under Cryosphere Working Group:

"...elements that make up the Arctic which include..." may be better worded more along the lines of "...elements that make up the Arctic, including the oceans, snow, ice sheets, and many other features that the Arctic region is comprised of, as well as concerning itself with how the current global climate may be affecting the cryosphere"

Under Marine Working Group:

Capitalize "Ocean" in "Arctic Ocean".

"The primary concern of the marine working group is that of the Arctic ocean as well as the subarctic seas and how the effect of the current global climate will affect both the Arctic ocean and seas but also how these changes may in turn affect the oceans and seas around the globe" is also awkward in its transitions, namely "but also". This may work better by separating the fragments into separate sentences.

-The "Marine Working Group" section in its current form sounds a bit awkward. "...is the third of the current five working groups" could maybe be replaced with something like "The third working group of the International Arctic Science Committee is The Marine working group" for better paralell structure with the other headings.

Under Terrestrial Working Group:

"This working group as indicated by the name is primarily..." should have commas like this: "This working group, as indicated by the name, is primarily..." or alternatively, remove the words "as indicated by the name".

"tries to understand what was the previous Arctic system like, what is the status of the current Arctic climate, and how will it look in the future" should be rewritten like this: "tries to understand what the previous Arctic system was like, what the current status of the Arctic climate is, and how will it look in the future".

The sentence "Another aspect of the terrestrial working group involves that how the changes of the Arctic climate will, in turn, affect the rest of the globe in the future" should also be reworked to something similar to: "Another focus of the terrestrial working group involves how the changes of the Arctic climate will, in turn, affect the rest of the globe in the future".

Good luck on your final article! Dkhc03 (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)