User:Climbingrocks1999/Waits River Formation/Mannepuckett Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mannepuckett

(Michala Puckett)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Climbingrocks1999/Waits River Formation


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Waits River Formation

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
- Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by peer.

- The lead is a bit choppy with some of the sentences being really short, maybe try combining them together with other sentences so that is not so choppy. The lead sentence can decently be a bit long and be used as an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.

- Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections. Like I said before just change the sentences to make them less choppy.

- The lead does not include information that is not presented in the article.

- The lead is concise although I think you could mention a few other things that you are going to secure in the article. Seems like the lead only talked about where it can be found.

Content
- Content added I relevant to the topic.

- Although the sources seem to be older I'm guessing that it was all you could find so it seems to be as up to date as possible.

- Doesn't seem to have any missing content or content that doesn't belong. Although I did notice that you have a lot of sources but not that much in your article. Maybe you could added some more sections possibly about structures found in the WRF or maybe sedimentology of petrology or mineralogy of the WRF. But I don't know what information is open to you so these are just suggestions.

Tone and Balance
- Content added is neutral.

- No claims are heavily biased toward a particular position.

- No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented.

- Content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another.

Sources and References
- All new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information.

- The content does accurately reflect what the cited sources say.

- The sources are thorough.

- Some of the sources are not super current but I know its hard to find current stuff on some of these rock units.

- Seems like you used the best reliable sources that you could find.

- All the links work

Organization
- The content is well written although there are a few really choppy sentences throughout so just go back and take a look at that. It's not the easiest to read from a non geology stand point. There are lots of words that might not make sense to some people so I would either change the words to something easy to understand or for the geology terms I would like the words so that people can look at another page about what they might mean.

- I don't see any big grammatical or spelling errors but you could always run it through a program that checks that if you are worried about missing anything.

- The content is really well organized, the only thing I have is that the age section is really small that it might be able to just go in a section with something else.

Images and Media
- The article does include images that enhance understanding of the topic.

- Images are well captioned.

- All images do seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

- Images are laid out in a visually appealing way. I wish the one image wasn't so far down with the references but I don't know if there is anything you can do about that.

Overall impressions
- The content added has improved the overall quality of the article

- Strengths of the content added: I really love your images that you used (did you make them yourself), they really added to helping understand what you talked about. You also have some really great sources and a lot of them which is awesome. The layout of your page is also down really well. Overall your page looks awesome!

- Improvements: Probably go back and look at some of those choppy sentences I talked about and adding a bit more to your lead section. Maybe adding some more to your page if you have the information to do so. Also going back and adding links to some of the geologic terms that might be confusing to non geologist. Not in improvement but a suggestion is to run your article through an online spelling and grammar checker if you are worried about that. Also if you are worried about plagiarism or haven't already but your article through the plagiarism checker an ASULearn.

Your article looks SO good! Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. about the things I said. You can always email to clear things up.