User:Sedith7/Columbia River Basalt Group/Ajmaclaurin Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sedith7


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Sedith7/Columbia River Basalt Group
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Columbia River Basalt Group

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.)

Lead:

Nothing has been added to the lead. Although, since the article is well developed there seems to be a structure the previous authors are trying to keep to. Therefore I do not suggest adding anything to the lead of this article.

Content:

All the content added is informative and related to the Columbia river basalt group. I would suggest adding a header to the topic so that we know where within the article you are writing. Are there comparisons you can make to display the significance of the emission numbers? Its hard to gauge whether that is a lot of not. If this is a subheading within a larger section, is it possible to add another subheading to further increase the readers knowledge on the subject? Maybe you could sprinkle a few sentences that might benefit some other sections, like the Wanapum or Saddle Mountains basalt section? In the talk page there is substantial edits that were done in 2011 and 2018 but I don't see a "To do list" of any sort that you could pick from.

Tone and Balance:

The tone of article is neutral which is perfect for a Wikipedia article. There isn't a point where I felt like you were trying to persuade me into believing something. Are there numbers to support "the Roza flow contains some of the most well chemically preserved basalts for volatile analysis"? If there are I would add a reference and if not I would consider rewording it so the reader isn't left asking themselves "What determines it as the most well chemically preserved?" Simply stating that the flow contains chemically preserved basalts would be a good fix.

Sources and References:

The references look to be from reliable sources and are well correlated to the article. The last two references are cited twice instead of just reusing the same refence. There is a date error on the last reference and that can be fixed by simply changing the source code from (1996-11) to (November 1996).

Organization:

I found your sentence structure easy to follow and your layout for the paragraph to be well planned out. I would add (CRBG) after the first time you write Columbia River Basalt Group to give the reader a definite description instead of them trying to guess that is what it stands for.

Images and Media:

There are no new pictures added but there is a week coming up where we add new media to our articles and therefore this isn't an issue.

Overall Impressions:

Overall, this addition to the Columbia River Basalt Group is a welcome one. It adds informative information that is lacking in that section of the article. There are a few minor things that need to be done to polish the content but overall its quite well written. I would suggest adding more content in the upcoming weeks to further add to the impact you are going to have on this article.