User talk:Shelby Crisp/Dungey Cycle

Katerina's Peer Review
Lead Section: The importance of the topic is not very apparent, as it simply gives a definition and very briefly explains circumstances in which it occurs. It does not highlight the importance in terms of defining specific effects of the phenomenon or the impact it has on us or the environment. However, it does give a concise introduction that allows the reader to know the specific phenomenon that he or she is going to read about.

Structure: This article is lacking in structure because it does not have individual sections or a distinct structure; it simply has one lead section that is concise but with no branching topics or subtopics. The lead section is organized very well, starting with a definition and leading into various circumstances and causes; however, aside from that the structure does not continue into various sections, as the sections do not yet exist. To develop the structure, it would be beneficial to develop more sections and branch into more topics based on the topic you addressed, such as possible models or effects.

Balanced Coverage: This article does not have very balanced coverage because it only consists of the introduction or lead section. To create a more balanced article, it would beneficial to create more sections, addressing more topics such as history, models, effects, or global impact. However, in terms of relevance, there is nothing not relevant or off-topic in the article. There are simply missing viewpoints and perspectives since all that the article addresses is the definition-based aspect of the topic. To address more perspectives, you could look into the research and studies of other scientists and their differing or similar viewpoints on the topic, or their significant developments in this field of study.

Neutral Content: The perspective of the article is very clearly neutral, and addresses a more definition-based perspective. This neutral perspective is exactly what Wikipedia aims for, so a continuation in this tone would be perfect for the rest of the article. There are no negative or positive connotations, and the article does not make any assumptions for people or occurrences in history. This article very clearly gives a reflection of the topic with a neutral tone; however, it does not highlight the various aspects or subtopics of the phenomenon. To improve this article, I would advise for you to maintain your neutral tone but highlight more studies, circumstances, models, or any other branches of the topic while avoiding negative and positive connotations.

Reliable Sources: This article is based on very reliable sources, with the first source coming from the Ionosphere Research Laboratory and published by the American Physical Society and the second peer-reviewed source published by the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the University of Leicester. Both articles come from very credible sources, and have credible evidence. However, in order to make your article more credible, it would be advised that you include more sources and a larger variety, to expand the perspective of your article and include more relevant information. Kaddington6 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)