User:Macwilliams3/Mendocino Triple Junction/Winter is coming567 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Macwilliams3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Macwilliams3/Mendocino_Triple_Junction?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template Link to
 * the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mendocino Triple Junction
 * Mendocino Triple Junction

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead is the first paragraph taken from the actual article. It describes the topic in question and paints well the situation at hand for the reader. However, there is no mention of the paper's sections in the lead. Furthermore, there is no reference to what section of the paper the new content will be added or whether a new section has been created entirely for the article.

Perhaps include in the lead what section of the article will be edited and where in that section the information will be added.

Content:

The content added is relevant and brings more comprehension to the Geolithology section, which is the least developed segment in the article. Unfortunately, one cannot know if the content is up-to-date for no sources have been posted in order to support the new information. There is no Wikipedia equity gap.

The article would benefit of additional information for the section in question or another segment of the paper.

Tone and Balance:

The tone is kept neutral throughout and the new content is not biased towards a certain position nor does it try to persuade the reader to one position or another.

Sources and References:

As stated in the Content segment, no sources/references are present in the draft in order to support the added information and give it credibility.

You should include at least 5 references from peer-reviewed journals, articles, etc., that are up-to-date and from diverse authors.

Organization:

The content is easy to read and concise. The new content is well incorporated with the existing text of the article for the section and transitions smoothly between the former and the latter. However, there are some grammar mistakes, such as:  while we see progression of grade  should be written as  while we see the progression of grade . Another mistake would be '' ...overlain with varying thickness of sedimentation.  instead of  ...overlain with varying thicknesses of sedimentation. ''

Images and Media:

Not applicable.

Overall Impressions:

In terms of strengths, the user provided good additional scientific knowledge regarding the Geolithology section of the topic, which gave more insight into the rock formations and bedding of the Coastal, Central and Eastern Belts of the Mendocino Triple Junction. It is easy to read, concise and keeps a neutral tone.

Regarding improvements, you should find sources to support and give credibility towards your content (min. 5). Watch out for grammar mistakes and perhaps add another paragraph or two containing relevant details for the Geolithology section or a different section of your choosing.

Nevertheless, the new content does improve the quality of the article without a doubt.

-Philippe Munteanu