User talk:Paul JCW/Airborne fraction

Peer Review
Lead Section

The lead section does a good job introducing the topic and summarizing the main points of the article. The first sentence is a concise and easy to understand definition sourced from a credible review paper, so I don't think you need to change anything there. However, I think the following statement in the first paragraph needs a citation: "The fraction averages about 45%, meaning that approximately half the human-emitted CO2 is absorbed by ocean and land surfaces." Maybe you can use the same source from this sentence in the second paragraph: "Observations over the past six decades show that the airborne fraction has remained relatively stable at around 45%." or combine the two statements together into one sentence to avoid repeating the numeric value for the airborne fraction. I think a citation for the last sentence of the first paragraph ("Changes in carbon sinks can affect the airborne fraction.") wouldn't hurt either. If you aren't planning to add anything more to the second paragraph, you could consider making it one, larger paragraph but I think the structure will be fine either way.

Structure

For the article structure, I would recommend creating section headers to organize the content of the article body, so it's easier for the reader to digest the information. An example of some sections you could have are: "The role of sinks" (could be broken down further into terrestrial and marine), "External factors/forcings" that can have an effect on the fraction, and "Perspectives on current/future trends" where you can include what you have on different argument for if the trend is increasing or remaining stable. Based on what information you are planning/want to add you can mess around with which section headers will work best for you.

Coverage and Content

The current article coverage is well balance, but once you've decided on the sections you'll have in the article body it may help to add more content for each given section. For example for a section on the sinks or trends you could add information on what changes in the ocean/terrestrial sinks have allowed for the air fraction to remain stable. In the paragraph mentioning how external natural occurrences may have an affect on the airborne fraction, you could specifically talk about what these effects may be for some of these factors.

I like that you are including multiple perspectives on the observed and projected airborne fraction trend, as it helps to create a neutral tone for the article and avoids drawing an overall conclusion. I would suggest rewording the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article body: "However, resolving this question is critical for comprehending the global carbon cycle and has relevance for policymakers and the general public" as it may come off as persuasive.

Scientific Accuracy/Reliable Sources

After looking through the sources, all of them appear to be peer-reviewed scientific papers relevant to the article. There is a good balance of each source used throughout the Wikipedia page as well. Some of the reference section needs to reformatted, specifically the 2nd reference's names should be (lastname, firstname) and the date can be written as just the year.

Misc.

In the following statement: "It is possible that the methodologies used in these studies to analyze the trend of airborne fraction are not robust, and therefore, the conclusions drawn from them are not warrented," warrented should be spelled warranted.

Mmorris95 (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)