User talk:Shannonsalter/sandbox5

Kristie's Peer Review
1. The lead section is simple and concise. It does a good job of briefly explaining what the concept of “alkaline precipitation” is. However, I believe that the current lead section can be slightly improved to reflect on the topics to be discussed later in the article. I feel that the lead section can be expanded into more sentences. For example, there could be one sentence on the causes; the next one can explain alkaline precipitation; and the last one could briefly mention the effects and management of alkaline precipitation. “Alkaline precipitation occurs due to natural and anthropogenic causes. It happens when minerals, such as calcium, aluminum, or magnesium, combine with other minerals to form alkaline residues that are emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by water droplets in clouds, and eventually fall as rain. Aquatic environments are especially impacted by alkaline precipitation. Because alkaline precipitation can be harmful to the environment, it is important to utilize various methods, including air pollution control, solidification and stabilization, and remediation, to manage it.” There were some very minor grammatical errors that could be fixed as well for better reading by the audience. Commas could be added when listing examples in the middle of a sentence, and the word “then” can be removed (it was overused). Besides this, the lead section was effective and fair (not giving too much weight to certain parts) and not repetitive or missing anything.

2. The order and flow of the article was very sensible and logical. I like how the article started off with discussing the causes, then proceeded to explain the impacts and management methods. The overall order was fantastic, but I feel that the two sections under “Anthropogenic causes” can be moved to have their own headings and become their own, separate sections. Also, I think it would be a good idea to go ahead and add commas when including certain examples in the middle of a sentence in order to enhance readability. Be sure to proofread your article carefully! There were some confusing parts, such as the first sentence of the “Impacts” section. Additionally, I think it would be better if the name "alkaline precipitation" was used consistently throughout the article (i.e. not changing it to "alkalinity precipitation"). Overall, I was satisfied with the organization!

3. The article does a pretty good job of balanced coverage. It somewhat covers all of the important aspects mentioned in the lead section. I feel that the “Natural causes” section and “Anthropogenic causes” sections cover enough material, but the “Impacts” section and “Management” section can be extended to include more information. For example, I believe that the methods in the “Management” section are just mentioned and not really explained well, so more information about each method can be provided for better understanding by the readers of the article. Overall, all sections were relevant and on-topic.

4. The overall tone of this article was neutral. There was no misrepresentation of information, not even the slightest hint at an opinionated claim, or anything that made it seem like a pure summary of scientific literature. Furthermore, there are no claims made on behalf of unnamed groups or people, and the article does not focus too much on negative or positive information (everything is stated in a neutral, unbiased way).

5. All of the sources used in this article are reliable. They are all peer-reviewed scientific journal articles written by credible authors, including the articles provided via Canvas. The sources were used effectively throughout the article. Everything that needs to be cited in the article was cited, accordingly. Overall, both the in-text citations and “References” section are well-formatted and easy to follow.

Great job on this article draft! I enjoyed reading your article. Good luck with the final draft and presentation! Kyoo98 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)