User talk:Mmonaghan9/sandbox

Hi there all! Here are some sources I've found to improve this article:

Ham, Yoo-Geun; Kug, Jong-Seong. (2014). "Effects of Pacific Intertropical Convergence Zone precipitation bias on ENSO phase transition". Environmental Research Letters. 9 (0604008): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064008

Robert, Andrew W.; Mechoso, Carlos R. (2000). "Interannual and Interdecadal Variability of South Atlantic Convergence Zone". American Meteorological Society: Monthly Weather Review. 128(8): 2947-2957. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2000)

Byrne, Michael P; Pendergrass, Angeline G; Rapp, Anita D; Wodzicki, Kyle R. (2018). "Response of the Intertropical Convergence Zone to Climate Change: Location, Width, and Strength". Current Climate Change Reports. 4: 355-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40641-018

Nelson, C.S.; Hendy, I.L.; Neil, H.L.; Hendy, C.H.; Weaver P.P.E. (1999). "Last glacial jetting of cold waters through the Subtropical Convergence Zone in the Southwest Pacific off eastern New Zealand, and geological implications". Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology. 156: 103-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-0812(99)00134-0

Fett, Robert W. (1967). "Typhoon Formation within the zone of the Intertropical Convergence". American Meteorological Society: Monthly Weather Review. 96(2): 106-117. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1968)096%3C0106:TFWTZO%3E2.0.CO;2

Mmonaghan9 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

New Sources:

Krishnamurti, T.N.; Stefanov, Lydia; Misra, Vasubanhu (2013). Tropical Meteorology: An Introduction. New York, New York: Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4619-7409-8. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7409-8

Waliser, D.E.; Jiang, X. (2015). "Tropical Meteorology and Climate: Intertropical Convergence Zone". Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences 6(2): 121-131. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382225-3.00417-5

Vincent, Dayton G. (1994). "The South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ): A Review." Monthly Weather Review 122: 1949-1970. https://www.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1994)122%3C1949:TSPCZA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Byrne, Michael P.; Pendergrass, Angeline G.; Rapp, Anita D.; Wodzicki, Kyle R. (2018). "Response of the Intertropical Convergence Zone to Climate Change: Location, Width, and Strength". Current Climate Change Reports 4: 355-370. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0110-5

Schneider, Tapio; Bischoff, Tobias; Haug, Gerald H. (2014). "Migrations and dynamics of the Intertropical Convergence Zone." Nature 513: 45–53. https://www.doi.org/10.1038/nature13636 Mmonaghan9 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Carson's Peer Review

I apologize for my tardiness in publishing this peer review for this article. It is unacceptable regardless of the poor set of extenuating circumstances that forced it to be so delayed, and I'm deeply sorry for infringing and hindering your efforts on this project. However, there is not much that can be done at this point outside of me making sure that this does not happen again. Without further ado, allow me to dive into this peer review.

Allow me to begin with your lead section. If one were to just take a glance at this section, they might be inclined to state that this section is too brief; however, I don't really see much more that can be added to this section as it stands currently. Adding words simply to make the section longer serves no real purpose, so unless a large amount of new content is added, the current length of the section is acceptable. Unfortunately, there still exists an issue with this section, which is that this section is currently a large quote without a source. While there is nothing wrong with direct quotations that are properly sourced, the current state of the section isn't the most professional outlook possible for this topic, and the appeal to ethos is diminished by such a choice.

The structure of the article, on the other hand, is in a much better state than the lead section. While the Bibliography or Works Cited section is missing a separation from the rest of the article, the organization of the article is fantastic. Every topic that you wanted to discuss is covered and appropriately organized as to allow for a coherent article that satisfies all requirements. Do not be afraid to add additional content to this article, however; as long as the current organization is maintained in some manner, the article's structure will remain intact and suitable for a Wikipedia article. I believe that the table of contents is automatically generated by Wikipedia's code, but if it is not, then look into establishing one on your article to allow for easy navigation.

Moving onto the balance of coverage, there is not much to criticize here either. The content of the article is presented in an unbiased approach that suits the general requirements for Wikipedia articles in regards to this dimension of them. If and when you decide to expand the article, make sure to maintain your current approach; it has been flawless so far. The importance of ensuring that the coverage remains balanced cannot be understated; however, due to the nature of this topic, I would find it somewhat hard to find a subtopic of your article that would cause some imbalanced approaches. Don't let additional content cause you to lean one way or another if it hasn't been proven.

Shifting the attention to the neutral content which can be easily found on your rough draft, your article appears to do a good job at providing a surface-level depth to each topic you decided to discuss within the body of your article. Nothing is overly stressed and each part is fully defined and at least briefly discussed. In terms of what can be discussed, sections either referring to tropical or extratropical cyclones, or otherwise discussing slightly smaller scales of convergence than just the general areas where it happens as a result of the convective cells in the atmosphere may end up being the key that secures the score you're looking for on this assignment. On a more positive note, I don't have anything critical to say about what was discussed and the manner in which it was discussed it. That being said, there is still some work that can be done in explaining the various types of convergence zones, the reasoning behind their formation, and any other aspect of these systems that I missed. Overall, the neutral content of this article is nearly the entire article currently, and it would be in your best interests to ensure that this neutral-dominated article remains that way.

Finally, let me briefly touch upon the sources utilized and sourced at the bottom of the article. Though the general approach is suitable without some minor falsehoods taking hold, the sources of the article are not properly sourced, nor are they properly grouped. Though they look to be completely reliable sources of information for your own page, that does not mean that the work is done as if they are simply included with a free "Get Out of Jail" card in case issues arise that require the justice system to settle. Though, it should be noted that most, if not all claims in the article are somehow tied to one of your sources, which is fantastic for providing legitimacy or credibility to the article. My advice for this section would be to properly format it, add additional sources to expand the current article, and to ensure that the grammar or syntax does not ultimately prove to be your downfall in regards to achieving a satisfactory grade. Make sure you prevent any potential mistakes in citing sources in order to properly avoid plagiarism.

With that final bit now said, I would like to thank you for your patience in waiting for my slow, pathetic self to properly create and post this peer review. I hope that this advice will serve you well and provide the pathway for achieving a good grade on the entire project. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carson Clements (talk • contribs) 10:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)