User talk:Xkurtma/Chemical equator

Hello, I am an undergraduate student studying Earth and Atmospheric Science and I am reviewing and editing this article as a part of my introductory environmental science course. I plan to use information from multiple reputable sources and edits from peer-reviewing to improve the content and quality of this article so the topic is more easily understandable and accessible. This article could be more informative with information going beyond the definition of the term "chemical equator" and the clarification that it is different than the ITCZ. I think the relevance of clarifying that it is not caused by the ITCZ should be stated with scientific data to back it up so people can fully understand the concept. Also, more specific information about the research that led to the discovery of the "chemical equator" can be included to give more background. The tone of the article in its current state is definitely sufficient and the one citation is very helpful and works well with the article. Although, a few more sources could be used to give a little more variety to the information and/or data. Xkurtma (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Xkurtma's Peer Review by Nate Mitchell
1) Lead Section Review: The lead section is perfect. I understand what the article is going to be about. It is concise, and it gives a nice overview about what the chemical equator actually is. It does not give too much info and leads perfectly into your article. After reading the entire article, it reflects the most important aspects of the article. Good job!

2) Structure Review:

I really like the structure. The order of the content is perfect. I like how you address the discovery of it first, then talk about the potential causes of the chemical equator. The difference between each section is easy to understand and makes sense. Good job!

3) Balance of Coverage Review:

Both sections length is equal. However, I do think the causes section should be a bit longer since I am sure there are many potential reasons as to why the chemical equator formed along with a lot of scientific reasoning behind it. I do think you should keep the discovery section as is. All perspectives seem to be represented in the two sections. The article does not draw any conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept any view point. One suggestion I would add is that maybe you should add a section about potential solutions or ways to get rid of or weaken the chemical equator.

4) Neutral Content Review:

The content in the article is very neutral. I do not see any words/phrases that indicate any positive or negative viewpoints or associations towards particular facts. The article merely states the facts. There is no focus on either positive or negative information. Overall, the article is a clear reflection of the topic of the chemical equator.

5) Reliable Sources Review:

Most statements are connected to a reliable source. Although, I may add a source or reference to the part about it being the first observance of meteorological and chemical boundaries in the discovery section. All the sources come from reliable sources, mainly journal articles. I would consider adding another source or two though since there are only 3. All in all, the sources used are used well and correctly, but I would consider adding another source or two.

N8mitchell (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)