Article: Atmospheric dispersion model
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
Yes. There are not much references in the main paragraph, but there're plenty of them in the following section. And they are appropriate and reliable.
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
Yes. The main article gives a general idea of what is atmospheric dispersion model and its application. While the following sections discuss about the atmospheric layer (which is a little irrelevant with modeling, but is a good background knowledge about atmosphere), Gaussian dispersion equation and Plume rise equations.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
In the main article, the applications of atmospheric dispersion model is overrepresented. Only the first paragraph introduces the function of this model, and the following two paragraphs focus too much on the real world application, which makes it a little tedious and diffusing as the main part of this article. While in the Gaussian atmospheric dispersion equation part, it gives a table of constant values in calculating the coefficients without specifying the exact meanings of the stability class (A,B,C,D,E,and F). So this part is underrepresented.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
The first link given in the Reference part no longer exists, but the article can still be found if searching the name and author.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
The industrial photos with plums on the main page is definitely out of date. It can be replaced with another picture better illustrates what the model would present as its calculation results. The definitions of stability classes is missing in the Gaussian atmospheric dispersion equation part.
How might you re-arrange the article to make it easier to understand?
I would add a new sub-section called 'Applications' after the Plume rise equation section. And move the second and third paragraphs in the main article into this section, which would leave the main article more brief.
How many equations are included in the article? Too many? Too few? Do they over-whelm the article? How might you make the article more achievable for a first time reader?
Two governing equations are included in this article, with other explanations and supplemental equations followed. The Gaussian air pollutant dispersion equation might be more achievable for a first time reader if a typical simulation results could be showed in a graph. A really nice picture depicts the dispersion in the Plume rise case, and the logic diagram gives a clear explanation of different situations.
How does the way the topic is discussed on Wikipedia compare to how we've discussed this topic in class?
On Wikipedia it tries to combine all the different situations into one equation, the Gaussian air pollutant dispersion equation, which is really informative but can be difficult to understand especially for a first time reader. While in class we specify the boundary conditions under different situations and discuss the corresponding equations case by case, which helps us better understand the essence of superposition.
The part I would like to add:
The classification of stability class is proposed by F.Pasquill[1]. The six stability classes are referred to:
A-extremely unstable
B-moderately unstable
C-slightly unstable
D-neutral
E-slightly stable
F-moderately stable
- ^ W, Klug (1984). Atmospheric Diffusion (3rd Edition). F. Pasquill and F. B. Smith. Ellis Horwood, (John Wiley & Sons) Chichester, 1983 (3rd ed.). New York: Quarterly Journal of Royal Meteorological Society.
Start a discussion about improving the User:JingxuanXiao/sandbox page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:JingxuanXiao/sandbox" page.
