User:Sff.119/sandbox

Evaluating Content: I think everything included in the page is relevant to the article topic, but there could be smoother transition between each idea. For example, in the Location section it gets very technical, and while it's full of valuable scientific information it is difficult to read. The information is presented clearly and accurately, but I think it could be written in a more accessible way. It does link to other related articles, such as lapse rate and vorticity pages.

Evaluating tone: The article is very neutral and doesn't seem to favor a specific viewpoint. It doesn't seem to have much room to input bias, as everything is very factual.

Evaluating sources: Every citation I checked had a working link, and the sources are directly related to the claims in the article. I didn't see any instances of plagiarism, but I'll have to do a more thorough check while I'm editing. It seems every source is academic, as it includes several peer reviewed articles and textbooks. However, some of the other wikipedia sources cited may have potential bias, so those are worth cross checking.

Evaluating talk page: When examining the talk page, a lot of people are using it to ask questions about tropopause, rather than the article. The answers to these questions could be valuable information to include, but most of the submissions are outdated. The article is rated as mid-importance and is supported by the Wikipedia Education Foundation.