User talk:Shannonsalter/sandbox2

Peer Review
Lead section: The lead sentence is simple, clear, an accurately overviews the article. Article’s structure: Article structure is very logical, and properly titled. Article’s balance of coverage: Coverage between natural and anthropogenic sources and bromine reactions with ozone seems well-balanced. Article’s neutral content: The article had an informative tone without any bias that I saw. Good job! Figure’s scientific accuracy: Figures values match up with citation values. Figure’s presentation and neatness: Figure is very neat and has a professional presentation. Great use of different thickness arrows for the fluxes! Figure’s level of completeness and detail: Great job detailing the values for many fluxes! A possible point of improvement is sink clarity in the figure/text. The figure doesn’t make it totally clear where the bromine sinks are and how they fit into the cycle. It looks like the ocean, land, polar regions, and troposphere/stratosphere could be the sinks (even though they have arrows next to them), but that doesn’t seem to be in line with the information in the text that the sinks are sea spray deposition and photochemical reactions. Figure caption’s quality and completeness: Caption completely describes the figure, but could use another edit for grammar. Also, references should be in the superscripted number format. Article’s citations (format and completeness): Citations are properly formatted, and are used throughout the article. Green desert scrub (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)