User:J rchand/sandbox

Article evaluation
-Most important: think critically

-In Wikipedia, there are many ways to critic an article and to make it better. You can rate an article in the Talk page based on the following good and bad elements:

Good elements of article evaluation
(1) Clarity of lead section

(2) Clarity of headings

(3) Balanced coverage of the different aspects

(4) Neutral coverage

(5) Relevant references

Bad elements of article evaluation
(1) Warning banners indicate that something is wrong with the article

(2) Language problems

(3) Unnamed references

(4) Not reliable references

(5) Too much opinion

How to evaluate?
If a citation is missing, the tag is added. There should be one citation at least per paragraph.

Good sources are independent publication, known for their fact-checking and neutrality and that provided consensus information about a specific topic. Not good sources examples are: blog posts and social media, press releases and promotional material, official websites, self-published materials.

Correctly paraphrasing means expressing an author's ideas in your own words. It involves also citing the source at the end of the sentences. In the same vein, it's important to provide all the copyright information when a figure, a video or any other original materials is used.

Evaluating: Terrace (Geology)
It's a well written short-article about fluvial terraces. Each section is concise and meaningful and shows neutral content. References' source are either peer-reviewed journal, published books or U.S. states' geological survey. Figures are relevant.

There are few typos (missing comas, capital letters not required etc.) in the text.

Also, I would suggest to beef up the lead section so that it gives a small introduction about the different types of terraces since this is the main subject here.

The kame terrace's section and the travertine terrace's section should be also improve so that each section of the article receives an equal coverage.