User talk:NGrahamMST/Hot air balloon

Peer Review
As my article was not peer reviewed, pasting in entries from my partner NJSanta's peer review here:

Jachar520:

General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

NJSanta


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:NJSanta/Hot air balloon


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hot air balloon

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

After looking over both the sandbox draft and the original article, I think it was a great choice to go in-depth into the different types of hot air balloons. That is something that the article as it exists does not do. I also think it is a good idea to add the information about the usage of hydrogen, because that is also something that the article does not go incredibly in-depth with. But I do not feel as though the information fits well in its current spot, or the way that the information is presented/ led into could be better. As it is right now, the sentence about the usage of hydrogen sticks out and is not clearly explained how it is related to the other content. If that was how the balloons were first used and lifted, then that information should go along with it. In the original article, hydrogen is only referenced two separate times, both discussing how it was quickly abandoned in most hot air balloons due to the fire hazard issue, or accidents that happened because of hydrogen ignition. A better place for this information might be along with the Rozier balloon section, because that is where it is discussed in the article, and explained how it is still used safely today. Looking through the content guiding questions, I believe that the information added is up to date, relevant to the topic, as well as covers a content gap in the original article. The question I had an issue with is the "content is missing or does not belong." I don't believe the hydrogen information does not belong, I just believe it could be placed in a better section. Then to the tone and balance section. I believe that the work in the sandbox draft has a completely neutral tone, and there is no sections or points in the content that try to persuade the reader in any way. I really enjoy how the content in the sandbox references topics that are already in the original article, such as the shape and construction of hot air balloons, but then expands upon them and shows when and how they were used and in what settings.

 response: Expanded the hybrid balloon section, tried to adjust phrasing to reflect it.

Editinglad

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

NJsanta


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:NJSanta/Hot air balloon
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hot air balloon

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I like the addition of examples of the types of hot air balloons and explanations of the observation balloons, but after reading the observation balloon article it seems that they were used earlier than the American civil war. You may also want to add a little bit about more modern observation balloons since they have been used all the way up through the cold war consistently. It would be interesting to see the design change throughout the time used. be careful to not go to in depth since their is already a decently sized article on observation balloons.

A small example image of each type of balloon would probably help with comprehension of the design differences.

do the listed types of balloons cover a majority of the major application that hot air balloons are used in?

I believe Zeppelins don't count as hot air balloons since they are a rigid airship and don't seem to use heated gas to create the lift.

 response: Ensured all listed balloon types have relevant pictures, from a brief convo between the two of us. NJSanta and I agreed that those covered most types, Zepplins removed and regular Gas Balloons added earlier today.

Afv513

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

NJSanta


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:NJSanta/Hot air balloon


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hot air balloon

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Overall:

 * The leading sentence is appropriate for the following subjects.
 * The types of hot air balloons titled shows promise for more information to come.
 * The references used are okay, but could benefit from more scholarly resources.
 * I'm not sure how this addition to the construction section of the article will fit as currently it's theme is the components of a hot air balloon, but the content is worthwhile and can benefit the article.

Over Observation Balloon Section

 * All sentences are cited.
 * Content is concise and makes sense together.
 * Tone is balanced.

Response Exactly what sources do not seem scholarly isn't clear. Dr. Sheppard, if you're reading this could you check them over and tell me any problem sources and I will do my best to find substitutes. One issue is a lot of balloon resources seem to found, at least most easily, on the websites of balloon companies, we can try a deeper dive to find more academic ones if needed. The construction portion of the article reads fine to me, my partner could've edited it as a response to that specific topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGrahamMST (talk • contribs) 04:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

NJSanta


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:NJSanta/Hot air balloon - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * ElizaJane11

Evaluate the drafted changes
I think that there is a really good start to a very interesting article in their sandbox. The only thing I would suggest is beefing up the content. It is easier to get started on writing when you just get the words on the paper and then coming back through and fine tuning and editing the things out that you do not need. I will say what is written is quality content, it gives interesting information pertaining to the topic at hand, the author also has made sure to correctly site every sentence. Their organization is good, but they need to have a bigger lead. So far it is just one sentence, and this is going back to the quantity of the content, but it needs to be more of an introduction. There are no pictures added so far which is fine, but that might be something that could add even more interest to the article. It would be helpful to have pictures of each type of hot air balloon discussed and that would also help the reader to better understand and visualize the descriptions that are listed. I think that once there is more information added and the author works on this a little more the addition to the article will be very valuable and relevant. Overall, a great start to an interesting article! Just add some more information, write at least a rough draft for each section so editing it will be easier, and add some pictures.

Response Did our best to continue to beef up the article, and will most likely continue to do so after fall break before our presentation(or at least I plan to).