User:Thyermj/Idaho Batholith/Bwooddell Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Thyermj


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

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.)

Introduction Paragraph


 * The length of your introduction paragraph is good, and the information is relevant towards the overall subject.
 * Looking at your hyperlink words you don't have to hyperlink certain things like Idaho and Montana, but more relevant words like batholith.
 * Also when stating dates you should try to use a format that is more none geologist friendly. Your use of "98-43 Ma" could be better worded with the actual time period that this event happened like you included within the first sentence of the paragraph.
 * I would also try to include either a aerial view of the batholith or maybe a geologic rock map of the batholith itself next to the introduction paragraph

Sub Header's To Add


 * Before you talk about the different lobes of the batholith you may want to include a history of the batholith and the surrounding country rock.
 * You could also fit in a section about the Challis suite since it seems to be a part of what has shaped the batholith.

Atlanta Lobe


 * You could definitely add more information in the age section by talking about the metaluminous suite that makes up apart of the lobe.
 * You could also talk about what events were happening around this time that created these two different suites that make up the lobe.
 * Looking at the structures again you could add more information.
 * You could go in depth about why or how it lacks uniform deformation and foliation.
 * You could also talk about what kind of mountain formations this lobe contributes too.
 * Looking at the petrology section you could break that up into two different parts, the first talking about the petrology of the metaluminous suite and then a part talking about the peralumnious suite.
 * You could go into detail about what it means to be pertologically homogenous.
 * Talking about what created the material within the peralumnious suite you could go into detail about what preexisting country rock was around.
 * The material found for both the suites you could go into detail about what they are and the kind of conditions they needed to form in.

Bitterroot Lobe


 * You could definitely add more information in the age section by talking about the metaluminous and peraluminous suite that makes up apart of the lobe.
 * You could also talk about what events were happening around this time that created these two different suites that make up the lobe.
 * Looking at the structures section you could talk about why or how this lobe has regional strain and foliation.
 * You could talk about what weekend crust is in correlation with the Louis and Clark line.
 * You could also add a small part about what striking and dipping means.
 * You could also talk about what kind of mountain formations this lobe contributes too.
 * Looking at the petrology section you could break that up into two different parts, the first talking about the petrology of the metaluminous suite and then a part talking about the peralumnious suite.
 * Talking about what created the material within the peralumnious suite you could go into detail about what preexisting country rock was around.
 * The material found for both the suites you could go into detail about what they are and the kind of conditions they needed to form in.
 * Lastly you could make a small section that talks about why they are petrologically different from each other.

References


 * Overall your references list looks pretty good, with a decent amount of articles that have been cited.
 * You also did not over use some of the references which is good because that causes the not so pretty look of the "abcde.." thing next to the reference.

Grammar


 * Overall your grammar was pretty good, there was a few words that needed to be fixed (which have been), but overall no major changes were made.

Conclusion


 * For the first draft of your Wikipedia page I would say it is pretty good.
 * Besides needing some more information and some pictures your references look good, and you have a basic structure for your page.
 * Just make sure you go into detail about certain thing you mention, this will add a lot more to your page as well as giving readers more background information to work with.