User talk:Lizarteaga9/Air stagnation

Article Evaluation

Lizarteaga9 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Most of the information in the article is relevant and has information about air stagnation, however it does talk a little further about what it could lead to, which is not necessarily relevant. What distracted me the most about this article were how short the sentences were and the amount of links that were not evenly spread out. Some of this information could be out of date since most of the references are from the early 2000's and since then, there has been much more information that has been discovered about air stagnation. In addition, the climate has changed which has effected how frequent air stagnation occurs. There could be information on what air stagnation is or looks like instead of the phenomenon about it. We could also talk more about the causes and effects of air stagnation and more relevant information on how it is currently a problem. What we could improve is adding more paragraphs, more accurate links and references, and definitely work on the flow of the information throughout. Some information is presented accurately but it could definitely be better. In addition, there are several links to other Wikipedia articles, but there should be edits surrounding what articles to keep or not. Lizarteaga9 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Liz's Peer Review

1. The lead sentence concisely defines the term air stagnation and contributing factors which are the basic foundational information for readers to understand the outline of the article. It goes on to describe its relevance to the world which gives weight to the importance of this event.
2. The information in the section has a clear line of reasoning but I feel like you could elaborate certain parts more in subsections. There could be one for the major sources or contributors to air stagnation in which you can describe the sources that facilitate or reduce accumulation of particles in the air. You could also include a subsection for the aftermath or implications of air stagnation as its effect on human health and overall trajectory for cities and industries, maybe even a section on urban areas. There could be a section detailing acts, initiatives, or policies made by countries or the US to regulate this phenomena, for instance the Air Stagnation Advisory mentioned in the leading section was not elaborated further in the passage.
3. The article has a balanced coverage of its sources and does not assume any singular viewpoint. There may be some sections that could be further elaborated on but the information and statements presented do not undermine the purpose of the text.
4. The article maintains its neutrality and does not make assumptions about its topics nor includes opinions favoring a specific viewpoint. Most of the information quoted in the text are factually backed by the many sources, and given equivalent exposure.
5. Your reference materials seem very credible with a wide mixture of journals, case studies, and scientific article. The sections also don't rely on a singular source which further supports your neutrality by considering numerous view points. I will say that your source 5 has a dead link.

Overall, the information presented and references sourced are really good but they could be presented in a more organized manner under specifically designated sections of their own, this will also help with users readability if they wish to skim the article. I do admire the attention to its relevance in the world and hope to find the intersectionality of my own topic in the bigger context of the real world. Numaiya Hasan (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)