User talk:GDiamond29/Apparent oxygen utilisation
Peer Review
[edit]Lead Section
[edit]The first sentnce for the lead is really strong and I think it does a good job at introducing the topic. Visualizing the equation for AOU was a nice touch as well. All the topics in the article body also feel like they were touched in the lead, so I think you're good on that. However, I feel like the lead may go a little to in depth and it may be better to spread out some of the content by moving some details to the main article body.
Structure
[edit]I think the present structure is pretty good, but it may improve the balance of the article if you move some of the content in the introduction to the article body. The oxygen trend section looks good. I like the subsection for spatial trends because it makes the content easier to digest. If any additional information is planned, then additional sections would be nice. Maybe a section on environmental significance would be easy to add.
Coverage
[edit]Overall, the article feels well balanced in its coverage. Nothing seems off topic and the section lengths all feel good for their given content. The tone is informative so it doesn't feel like the writing is trying to lead to a particular conclusion.
Neutral Content
[edit]The article does a great job of mentioning multiple perspectives. Specifically, this applies for describing the different explanations for the decreasing oxygen concentrations. Throughout the article the tone remained informative, but I'd remove the "small" from the second sentence in the oxygen trend section to avoid sounding biased. Overall the article keeps an informative, neutral term.
Sources
[edit]I think you did a great job of mixing in all three of your sources throughout the article. None of the articles feel dominant over the others at all. All three sources align with Wikipedia's policies and offer an overview of the subject-matter, so nothing comes off as biased.