User:BlossomN/Hydrothermal circulation/Sedith7 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BlossomN


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:BlossomN/Hydrothermal circulation


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hydrothermal circulation

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

Nothing was added to the lead of the article, however the introductory sentence of this contribution does provide a strong basis for what you go on to discuss. Furthermore, I would not personally recommend adding to the lead of the article as it seems as though previous authors have provided a clear and concise one. However, if there is something that you find that you think could improve the lead, then by all means you should.

Content:

The content added is both informative and relevant to the article. All information is well cited from reputable sources. My only suggestion would be an edit in line 4 changing the phraseology of “volcano lakes” to either “Volcanic lakes” or “Volcanogenic lakes”. Other than this, I found that the sentence structure flowed very well throughout the article.

Tone and Balance:

The tone and balance of this article contribution is neutral. At no point did I feel as though the writer was trying to persuade me of any particular point of view or fact.

Sources and references:

The references provided are from reputable and reliable sources. They are properly cited and do not contain any errors. The citations seem to be relatively up to date as they are from 2008 and 2012 respectively, which is good.

Organisation:

The sentence structure and overall flow of the contribution was very well written and easy to follow. The use of in-text links for things like “geysers, groundwater, hot springs” etc, added a very good level of organisation to the piece. I would suggest doing the same thing if you decide to change your wording from “volcano lake” to “volcanogenic lake” as there is currently a wikipedia article written on this topic. Aside from this, the header also was a good addition to the contribution organisationally and properly reflects what is discussed.

Images and Media:

There were no new images added, however this was not a requirement of this weeks assignment so this is not an issue.

Overall Impressions:

My overall impression of this contribution is that it is well written, structured, informative, relevant, and well cited. Except for the minor edit suggestion that I have made, I think this piece is pretty well refined. The only thing further that I could suggest further is adding more information / relevant data to the contribution over the coming weeks if that is the route that you would like to take.