User talk:Carolinefortune
| This user is a student editor in Georgia_Institute_of_Technology/Introduction_to_Environmental_Sciences_(Fall_2023) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Carolinefortune, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Notes for Vapor Intrusion article:
[edit]- Describe history
- Ways to protect yourself
- what is currently being done
-other countries Carolinefortune (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]The lead is concise and informative, and tells exactly what the article will be about. However, there are some parts that might be unclear to readers, such as what “Volatile Organic Compounds” and “indoor air” are. To make it a little more clear, I would add a link to the Wikipedia articles on VOCs. Overall, it does reflect the most important information and seems to give an even weight to all the important parts of the article. Nothing seems missing or redundant.
The sections are organized well between causes and the process, and then the concerns and mitigation. However, it is a little hard to distinguish between the different sections because the entire article is in bold, so to fix it I would un-bold the body text. In addition, I like the order of the sections, it makes sense and is easy to understand. It also does not have a “see also” section, so I would include that too.
Each section appears equal in length which is good, and no sections that seem unnecessary or off topic. The article does reflect the different perspectives/aspects of vapor intrusion and does not draw any conclusions or try to convince the reader of a single point of view. It is informative and well balanced.
The article looks neutral in tone and does not seem biased anywhere, so I could not guess the perspective of the author. I do not see any phrases or words that do not feel neutral.
There is only one citation in the article, a citation to a document written by the EPA, which is a reliable source. In addition, there is a link to a journal article in the references section but I do not see a link to it anywhere in the draft, so I would add that in there. Overall, the two sources used are reliable and unbiased. However, to make it even better I would incorporate more than two articles in order to get the most point of views possible. Some sentences do not have a source on them that look like they might need sources in both the causes and process section, as well as the concerns and mitigation section.