User talk:KimberlyKassis/Atmospheric focusing

Lead section I think the lead section introduces the topic very well. The section is explained in a simple way. I liked how there was a comparison drawn between the blast effect of atmospheric focused impacts and the sun. I think that having a further understanding of common events helps us to understand more uncommon events that occur. The process of atmospheric focusing was concise and effectively talked about the many factors to take into account whenever shock waves do occur.

Structure The structure looks good. The layout is not overwhelming to look at and is neatly organized. It was easy for me to read through the sections due to the structure. I like the placement of everything so far. Great job on the structure!

Balance of coverage The topics look mostly balanced. The size of the information is good. The topics each flow very nicely and build from the lead section. The information being covered is accurate. I think maybe more could be added to the topic on nuclear explosions and bombs next as a suggestion.

Neutral content I realized that atmospheric focusing is not really an opinion based topic. The content is neutral. This article is very informational. The content was efficiently explained without biased claims. Great job on keeping the article neutral!

Reliable sources The sources are reliable. The sources further expand on the article. The links are also very helpful for more information. I understand that there may not be as many sources on this topic. Meteor impacts and nuclear explosions don't happen that often. Astronomy Rules (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)