Wikipedia:Peer review/Center for Indoor Air Research/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I want to get feedback on how this article can be improved, as I am hoping to bring it up to GA status in the future. Everymorning (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments from RO
edit- Lead
- Looks a little thin. Be sure it properly summarizes all the article's sections.
- History
- founded in March 1988 by Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and Lorillard
- Wikilink these companies.
- This agreement required the tobacco industry to disband the CIAR
- Why? This would be better if explained.
- However, according to Alisa Tong and
- Avoid using "however" in formal writing.
- Stated mission
- including the health effects of ETS
- You haven't explained what ETS is in the article body.
- However, in 1992
- Avoid
- Structure
- "special-reviewed" projects
- Who conducted these "special-reviewed" projects?
- Funding of scientific research
- many scientists, although unwilling to accept funds directly from the tobacco industry, were willing to accept funds from the CIAR.
- This implies that scientists didn't know who funded CIAR. Was that the case?
- This study was based on the hypothesis that particles transported indoors from outdoor air, rather than ETS, were responsible for a significant proportion of indoor aerosol concentrations.
- You need to make the connection between ETS and indoor aerosol concentrations explicit, as this is confusing. Do cigarettes really contain aerosols?
- However, after some of his studies found that this exposure
- Avoid "however" in formal writing.
- authored by Johns Hopkins
- Wikilink Johns Hopkins.
- that some cases of lung cancer previously attributed to passive smoking might actually be caused by other factors, such as diet.
- The lead says that CIAR funded research on indoor air pollution, but this says that also studied diet as a cause of illness. Add this to the lead to better summarize the content of the article.
- Conclusion
This seems like a work in progress, as I assume there must be much more detail than what's currently presented here, particularly negative reaction to the studies. For example, you mention the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, but you don't detail it's direct impact or explain what it is in the article. In fact you mention it in the lead, but not the article, which is wrong. Every detail in the lead must also be in the article body, so if it's not explained in the article it should not be included in the lead. I think this is a ways off GAN, but I'd strongly recommend another peer review after you make another attempt at comprehensiveness, before taking it to GAN. Keep up the great work! RO(talk) 19:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)