User:Longka2/Gore Mountain Garnet/Climbingrocks1999 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Longka2


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Longka2/Gore Mountain Garnet


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

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.)

Overall
This article is very good. When I am reading this, I feel like I am kind of reading a scientific paper. You can be a little more relaxed in how you explain thins. The language is a little extra. For example in the geologic overview section your sentence : "Recent studies suggest the abnormal size of the garnets is attributed to high temperatures and fluid flow introduced by faults.", you could instead just say "The abnormal size of the garnets is from high temperatures and fluid flow from faulting."

Geographic Situation
I would suggest you just call this section "Geography"

Minerology
I like you how you did your mineralogy. Is it in order of abundance?

Also spell out the elements name at least once so the person reading could maybe click a wikilink.

Structures
I feel like you do not need that first sentence in this section. Just go into explaining the structures.

Formation and Origin
The first thing I would suggest is moving this section to the beginning of the article. It would flow better this way.

This first sentence, I feel like it is not necessary to explain what the protolith was suspected to be. That may just be confusing for a regular person to read. It might also make more sense to talk about the protolith in the introduction paragraph at the top of the page and just name the section "Metamorphism". I would also have more visual separation of this section. It feels like a lot for just one paragraph, it could be split into 2 or a more visually pleasing organization like in you minerology section.