User:Mannepuckett/Catoctin Formation/KyleGorczynski Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

M. Puckett


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mannepuckett/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Catoctin Formation

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead blends well with the previously existing article and introduces the content well.

Content: Lots of great facts and information. May want to link to more pages that clarify broad geologic terms like regular jointing, flow surfaces, and other terms. You have done a good job at naming most of these, but there are still a few that are unclear. I dont think there is any harm in making more links.

Tone and Balance: Tone is very professional and informative, yet still clear to a non-geo reader. Nice job on tone and voice.

Sources and References: Sources look strong, and the references look great too. Maybe try to have more than one reference per section, i.e. on your Stratigraphy section, it looks like the only source you reference is #6. Maybe try finding agreeing information in a source you already have linked, and provide that in there to support #6. I understand that this may not be possible, and I am just being picky as I really think you did a good job, so no worries if it isn't possible.

Organization: Sensible order and easy to navigate the page. Good organization.

Images and Media: There are some great photos, however it would be better if you could find color photos as well. The black and white photos are decent, but color really adds detail that may help readers see the rock formations.

Overall impressions: Very good job. I am impressed with not only the length, but the effective use of words to convey the information. You should be proud of this.