User talk:Mhardt3/sandbox

Dorien's Peer Review: Greenhouse Gas Monitoring
The first sentence of the lead section is concise, and offers an accurate, general understanding on the concept of greenhouse gas monitoring. As compared to the original sentence, the use of the beginning two sentences helps the reader to better understand the meaning behind the article. If possible, I would include a sentence providing a description of the types of chemical monitoring: carbon dioxide monitoring, nitrous oxide monitoring, and methane gas monitoring. I believe there are a good amount of links that connect terms that are not common to the reader (ex. Orbiting Carbon Observatory and Integrated Carbon Observation System), which enables the reader to learn more about certain methods. Overall, the lead section is well-written, and provides a clear understanding of the topic.

In comparison to the original article, there have been several changes that show a clear understanding and research about the greenhouse gas monitoring. For one, I definitely approve of the inclusion of subsections to describe the different types of chemical monitoring. Due to this inclusion, the article has a more logical flow, specific to the topics covered. With regards to the image featured in the original article, the graphs cover all of the monitored greenhouse gases in addition to CFC-11 and CFC-12. I think the overall structure of the article is great, but the addition of a section detailing CFC monitoring would help to enhance the information given from the image.

Currently, the balance of coverage is much better, which stemmed from the additional information. At first glance, there is not as much information covered about methane gas monitoring. I believe some of the other sources found may resolve this, but further research on methane gas monitoring would also help to balance information. Likewise, if you decide to add information regarding CFC monitoring, ensure that the information added is similar in structure and sources as the other sections are.

Overall, the content within your Sandbox is neutral. The only thing that I could see being taken out of context is describing nitrous oxide and methane gas as the "most prominent" or "most impactful" compound as it relates to its potency within the ozone. Although these statements are true based upon the research conducted, I would try to incorporate maybe one or two statistics of the amount of each compound within the atmosphere, as seen appropriately. Otherwise, the information that you have added into your Sandbox is definitely unbiased, and displays an accurate outlook on greenhouse gas monitoring.

The sources that you have included in the Sandbox are all great sources, and will continue to grow with further research. I did notice where there is one source per section (i.e. using Daniel Harris' article on atmospheric CO2 measurements for the entire section of carbon dioxide monitoring). Even though this source has more than enough information on carbon dioxide monitoring (similar to other sections), I believe having one or two more sources per section would enhance the information covered throughout each subsection. Also, if there is any overlapping information from other sources, it should still be safe to cite those sources in your article as well.

Overall, your article is amazing! I definitely see a clear direction in the way you are improving this article, and can't wait to see the article in the future. Happy editing!

Dminor8 (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)