User talk:BookishEnlightenment/sandbox

BookishEnlightenment's peer review

Lead section: The author did an excellent job on writing the lead section. The lead section has concluded the current status of methane detection on Mars accurately and concisely. However, the lead section lacks a specific overview about SOFIA/EXES and their results, since it is the article's main topic. The lead section can perfectly serve as the lead section of our final article though. Moreover, whether methane measurements started from 2004 is debatable, there were earlier measurements by Mariner 7 that dated back to 1969.

Article structure: The article has a clear structure, with short subtitles showing the topic of each section. However, the last two sections, Reconciling Results and Photochemistry, are loosely connected with the previous SOFIA/EXES results parts. Specifically, it would be better to have a smoother transition from "No definitive measurements of methane" to "With data suggesting a methane cycle".

Balanced coverage: The article has a good balance on the observation results and possible explanations. However, the "Findings" part needs more detailed information about how the null detection was concluded, and why it matches with "a methane plume".

Neutral content: The article is neutral overall. However, the first statement "With data suggesting a methane cycle" in the "Reconciling Results" section lacks information on who is claiming what data suggests the methane cycle.

Reliable sources: Most statements in the article connected to a reliable source. However, there are 2 less reliable sources, "Making Sense of Mars' Methane" from the Astrobiology Magazine, and "The methane mystery" from the European Space Agency. Moreover, the first paragraph in the "Reconciling Results" section is unsourced.

The author has done a great job introducing the reader to the findings of the SOFIA/EXES mission and the explanations proposed by scientists to try to reconcile the different results. The scientific facts are accurate and no important parts are missing. The author did really well on writing the lead section with concise language, and I can also learn from it.

There can be improvements on the "Findings" and "Reconciling Results" sections. These two sections are about the findings of the SOFIA mission and the explanations based on these findings. More details about how the null detection result was concluded can be included, specifically on what is a null detection and how the data shows that it is a null detection. Moreover, why the data matches with the explanations, such as the methane plume or methane cycle, can be addressed. Finally, these explanations can be stated in a neutral tone.

Astrogtj (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC) Jiapeng Gao