User:Entomological/Rock mechanics/Mintgreen01 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Entomological


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Entomological/Rock_mechanics?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Rock mechanics
 * Rock mechanics

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

The lead is accurate as it reflects the section covered.

ContentThe content covered is relevant and adds more to the original article itself. Also, the content cited is recent. The writing in this section is clear, concise and the concepts are easy to grasp.

Tone and Balance

The tone is neutral and there is no bias in the draft.

Sources and References

Although not a lot of sources are used, the information conveyed by them is accurate and does a great job of explaining the methods of rock mechanics in a way that is easy to understand. The sources added are up to date and reliable. Also, I really appreciate how diverse the authors/origins of the sources are.

Organization / Overall Impressions

Overall, the article is well-written and concise. There are a few instances where sentences seem to run a bit long, but in general it was informative and to the point.

For example:

"Two direct methods of testing that can be done are laboratory tests and in-situ tests, but there are also indirect methods of testing which involve correlations and estimations that are obtained by analyzing field observations."

- This sentence could be split into two like this:

"Two direct methods of testing that can be done are laboratory tests and in-situ tests. There are also indirect methods of testing which involve correlations and estimations that are obtained by analyzing field observations."

Also, all the information provided was relevant and added greatly to the original article, since the methods section is fundamental to better understand the topic.

One suggestion I have to improve the article is maybe splitting up the methods section into "lab tests" and "in-situ tests" sub-categories and adding a bit more detail to each. For example, by expanding on the many laboratory tests performed. However, if this is not possible, the conciseness of this section also works well.

Another suggestion is building on this section, specifically on the very last sentence, by adding more information on the factors affecting rock mass.

Basically, you did great! I hope this was helpful feedback!!