User:Sedith7/Columbia River Basalt Group/Laurenmacky 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

Lead
No lead has been drafted yet. For the final submission, I suggest adding a line to the article's existing lead section summarizing the information that you have added.

Content
All of the content added is relevant to the Columbia river basalt group and the information presented is up to date (based on the references). I liked the use of numeric data, a suggestion would be to add some data pertaining to similar large igneous provinces so that people can compare and understand the impact of the data. As a reader who doesn't know much about large igneous provinces, I am unable to tell if the emissions are considered high relative to others. On the talk page, there is a conversation about adding a comparison the the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province, which could be something you could discuss perhaps adding to your section along with mentioning the changes you are implementing. Not much text has been added yet, so my biggest suggestion would be to continue adding and maybe making more sections. Looking at the original Columbia river basalt group Wikipedia page, it looks like there is room for text to be added to the "Related geologic structures" sections.

Tone and Balance
The majority of the content added is neutral, as most is numeric data which are hard facts. There are two phrases used that might be viewed as biased without any other information to back their claims. The first is "as with any large igneous province" in reference to all large igneous provinces being marked by atmospheric loading, this assumes that there are no outliers. This could be fixed by instead saying "similar to other large igneous provinces" and then providing examples (with references). The second is "the most well chemically preserved basalts for volatile analysis", which could be fixed by removed the word "most" and just stating that it has well chemically preserved basalts. Otherwise there would need to be data to back the claim of it being the "most". There is not enough text to comment on balanced coverage, as it is all a part of one topic.

Sources and References
All information presented, except for the second and third sentences, have good quality references to support them; those two sentences require references because they discuss research that has been done and give a numerical fact. The sources used are all journals and are not outdated, so they are reliable sources. The links to each of the references work and the data contained within them match the text associated with them. Each was only used once so they were not overused. There references are diverse, however one reference is repeated twice in the reference section so that can be fixed by using the "re-use" function when citing instead of making an entirely new one. Furthermore, the Thordarson and Self (1996) reference displays an error in red text that needs to be resolved by reformatting the date by either adding the day or shortening it to 1996. A good reference to use for future additions to the page would be Winter (2014), as it contains a lot of information on the petrology of the Columbia river basalt group.

Organization
The text is free of grammatical and spelling errors. It is also concise, everything added is necessary to the point being developed. Since this is a heavy topic and there is some content that the average reader won't grasp I would add links to other Wikipedia pages and explain acronyms, to make the text more clear. Some links that could be added include Large igneous province, Degassing, Sulfuric acid, Phenocryst, Dike (geology), Hydrofluoric acid and Hydrochloric acid. As for the acronyms, you use the acronym CRBG for Columbia river basalt group but don't explicitly say anywhere that that is what it stands for, so in the first sentence you could add "Columbia river basalt group (CRBG) so people know what it means later on. I would also spell out "weight percent" at least once in case a reader does not know what wt% is. There are no sections (headers) in the draft. All of the text drafted appears to be a part of one topic so a header should be added above it all so readers know what they unifying topic is, as well as a header for the references section.

Overall Impressions
To sum up, I think that the draft is well worded, contains concise and relevant information to the Columbia river basalt group, and has good quality references. I think a big strength to this text is that it covers an area that the original Wikipedia page is lacking and definitely needs, and includes a lot of strong numerical data. The main weakness to the text is that readers without a significant understand of large igneous provinces may find it difficult to read. I think the main focus continuing should be to add more text. Here is a list of suggestions that summarize what I said above:


 * Explain acronyms
 * Add section headers
 * Fix error messages in references and add one or two more references
 * Add links to other Wikipedia pages
 * Rephrase some biased sentences