User talk:Mleggett8/sandbox

Bibliography Round 1

Jikells et al (2005). "Global Iron Connections Between Desert Dust, Ocean Biogeochemistry, and Climate". Science. 308 (5718): 67-71 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1105959

Charlson et al (1987) "Oceanic Phytoplankton, Atmospheric Sulfur, Cloud Albedo, and Climate". Nature: International Journal of Science. 326 (6114): 655-661 https://doi.org/10.1038/326655a0

Giannini et al (2008) "A Climate Model-Based Review of Drought in the Sahel: Desertification, the Re-Greening and Climate Change". Elsevier. 64 (3-4): 119-128 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.05.004

Winton, Michael (2006) "Amplified Arctic Climate Change: What does surface albedo feedback have to do with it?". Geophysical Research Letters 33 (3) https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025244

Stevens, Graeme (2005) "Cloud Feedbacks in the Climate System: A Critical Review". Journal of Climate 18: 237-273 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-3243.1

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Mleggett8)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
It seems like the Lead used to be updated and then my peer deleted it for some reason. Right now, the work is not reflected in the article. The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic and a brief description of the article's major sections. The Lead includes new information and it is not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant and up-to-date. There isn't any missing content or content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral and does not appear to be biased. It is merely stating facts and is not persuasive in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
New content are backed up by reliable secondary source of information. However, one of the source is from 1987 which is a little outdated. It will be better if the author can find a source that is more current.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
In the sentence "This plant life can then make products which increase the cloud cover.", it will be better if "make products" can be more specific to include some actual substances that are made by the plant. In addition, when explaining relationship among cloud cover, plant growth, solar radiation, and planet temperature, the author can use more variety instead of just saying increasing or decreasing which could appear to be a little repetitive. Finally, instead of writing "the interaction between cloud cover, plant growth, solar radiation, and planet temperature," perhaps "the interaction among cloud cover, plant growth, solar radiation, and planet temperature" will be more accurate.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
My peer added an image that explained negative feedback loop using boxes and arrows. Despite being very simple, I think that the image explained negative feedback loop well and is well-captioned. It adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and is laid out in a visually appealing way.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think the content improves the overall quality of the article by adding more example. However, the language can be changed to be more accurate and specific. The sources can be more up-to-date too. Cli681 (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)