User:Rgwhy001100011/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Numerical modeling (geology))

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am currently taking a hydrologic modeling class which is quite similar to this and I thought it might be interesting to see a different perspective on the topic

Evaluate the article
The lead section was repetitive through the two definitions is gave, it could have been shortened into one succinct paragraph describing geological numerical modeling. Although it is clear it is repetitive and some of the details given could have been introduced later.

All the information seemed to be relevant but it is disjunct in a sort of way where all the of the ideas seem to be from different editors, which is not a bad thing if done correctly, but in this case it seemed as though they all had different interpretations on writing style and conveyed their messages differently. And although all the different editors did stray in the way that they write, they all talked about the common theme of numerical modeling.

Visually it seemed to be filled with animated diagrams and pictures describing the various uses of numerical methods in geology so that was conveyed correctly. The one thing I would do would be to section it better, it seemed to be layer out alright but could use some editing.

The links are accurate and up to date, I did not check all 100 but I clicked on a few random ones and they seemed to be up to date and accurate.

The talk pages mentions how the topics are difficult to understand for the average reader and in some cases could use some help in explanation and depth. They also mention how the introduction could use some work introducing the various topics that will be mentioned in the paper like I stated earlier.