User:Mccarthyea/Ashe Metamorphic Suite/Schubertan Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Evan McCarthy - Ashe Metamorphic Suite


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

intro - goes over what it is, where is it, how old it is, very good. you might consider reorganizing it so that the "what" it is comes first, and the "where" comes after

geographic situation - the name is a bit confusing? find a replacement for the word "situation". the section is also only two sentences long, consider making it longer

geologic overview - I like that you have all the rock types linked to their respective articles, that is very helpful. in the intro, you say that the AMS is "overwhelmingly amphibolites and mica schists", but in this section you say it is " overwhelmingly mica schist", so I'm not sure how important the amphibolites actually are

petrologic description - the basaltic protolith bit is good, and has the chemical data to back it up. overall this section is good, if you have anything else petrology or mineralogy related to expend it, that would be good too

formation and origin - flip the whole section around, so that the Iapetus ocean sentence comes first, and then give all the different researchers opinions on it. this section reads more like a research paper than most of the other ones do, and could use some re-wording. naming the researchers by name when the readers have no previous context for them is confusing

references - lots of references! yay!

images - it is good that there are microscopic and macroscopic images

overall - well done :)