User talk:Metalmogul/sandbox

Richard's Peer Review
1. Starting with the lead, it is very detailed but concise in the description of the Convention while providing an easy to understand overview of the topic. However, the lead is not differentiated from the rest of the information, which would help new readers identify the lead statement. As for the weight of the Lead, it emphasizes the importance of the Convention by saying all nations have ratified the treaty. I would include, however, some major aspects of the treaty, such as the main points in the document.

2. The References and Outside sources have clear section headers, however, the main body of information is in one larger section. By splitting up or giving sub-sections to the information, readers will be able to more easily navigate the page.

3. The article's content is spread throughout one section. Nothing written is off-topic, with reflecting all perspectives in the sources. I would recommend varying the pronouns a little though, changing some of the "It/Its" into the name of the article, just "The Convention" as referring to the Vienna Convention, or other pronouns. In addition, adding a more detailed analysis of parts within the agreement will further develop insights into the large scope and feat the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer hold on the global community and worldwide environmental protection.

4. If asked the perspective of the author of the article, I would not be able to guess the opinion of the author. The writer's content presents a neutral viewpoint, as is stressed in all Wikipedia writing. Phrases showing bias, such as the examples given in the assignment question, have been avoided in the article. Based on the current text, the article avoids negative information, but at the same time, there is not enough to make an accurate assessment of balance.

5. Both of the two listed sources in the references section come from a primary and secondary source respectively. The Vienna Convention comes directly from the United Nations archives whereas the reference to the Ozone depletion comes from a textbook. None of the listed sources refer to a blog or unverified source and they are referenced in the proper places according to their descriptor. However, the article links to the Montreal Protocol but does not reference the agreement.

Overall, I see great changes made to the article on the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. I would suggest adding more content on specific parts coming from within the Agreement itself.

Stillr (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)