Full Picture

Article analysis:

This article provides an evaluation of four satellite-based quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) products for drought monitoring at a global scale. The article is well written and provides a comprehensive overview of the research conducted. However, there are some potential biases and unsupported claims that should be noted.

First, there is no discussion of possible risks associated with using these QPE products for drought monitoring. While it is acknowledged that these products have been found to have satisfactory performance in most regions according to SPEI statistics, it is not clear what risks may arise from using them in areas where they do not perform as well or where there is sparse gauge distribution.

Second, while the article does provide an overview of each product's performance across different continents, it does not explore any counterarguments or present both sides equally when discussing their relative merits or drawbacks. Additionally, there is no discussion of any potential promotional content or partiality when evaluating these products which could lead to biased conclusions about their effectiveness for drought monitoring purposes.

Finally, while the article does provide evidence for its claims regarding each product's performance across different continents, it does not provide any evidence for its conclusion that CHIRPS and TRMM-3B43 can be used as near real time drought monitoring techniques whereas PERSIANN-CDR might be more suitable for long term historical drought analysis. This lack of evidence makes it difficult to assess whether this conclusion is accurate or reliable.

In conclusion, this article provides an informative overview of four satellite based QPE products for drought monitoring at a global scale but there are some potential biases and unsupported claims which should be noted before relying on its conclusions about their effectiveness for this purpose.