User talk:Erikheit/sandbox2

Peer Review- Gwen

1) Your lead introduces the article pretty well. It covers the basics of the topic and is well written. I will note that sentence 4 feels a bit out of place, as NMHCs are not mentioned later in the article (it also lacks a reference). I would consider omitting it. (It also lacks a reference).

2) The structure of this article is solid. I would consider making Anthropogenic and Biogenic Emissions subsections of a larger Emissions section, but its not 100% necessary. Other than that, the article is well organized and the sections make sense.

3) For the most part, this article spends a good amount of time on each topic and seems to cover the literature well. It's also not trying to convince the reader of anything. If possible, I might add more from sources 4 and 6 to the Atmospheric Chemistry Importance. What you have there is good, but I think having more about why this matters could be helpful. For instance, you mention the importance of NMVOCs on atmospheric ozone, you could mention the NOx-VOC system or link to a relevant wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_level_ozone).

4) You did great on making your article nuetral. The article is unbiased. I don't see any evidence of perspective coming through, nor do I see any non-neutral phrasing.

5) The article uses reliable sources. Most statements are followed by a citation, though I would double check on final edits. I noticed what looked like uncited statements in the lead and the Atmospheric Chem section. For the most part, sections use multiple sources evenly. However, I did notice a heavy use of source 7 in the biogenic emissions section. It makes sense why this is the case and I don't think its an issue, but I wanted to note it.

Overall, you did a great job!

GDiamond29 (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)