User:Vosikajm/Central Montana alkalic province/Conklincjc1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Vosikajm


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Vosikajm/sandbox


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * nope

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead - Needs a lead (intro) at the top, just a basic couple sentences about it. You can do away with the Location subheading and instead turn that into the lead (why is it the alkalic province?)

Geology - Check comma grammar and sentence structure, scientific articles are formal but they don't have to be choppy. I'd put more info in about the historical geology, like why there are fluvial deposits in Montana (what happened in the Cambrian to make Montana be underwater?) Don't be afraid to go more into the geological history details.

Judith Mountains - "The Cambrian rocks consist of clay, silt, sand, and quartz." silt only makes rocks if it's compacted, definitely be more specific that these are the origins of the sedimentary strata, not the current state of them. Be more specific about the sand vs quartz, sand is mostly quartz (but if there's fossilized microorganisms that had silicic shells that made up the sand, that's also an important addition). This paragraph is better, but the sentences are still disjointed (use commas, they're your bff). Also how did the igneous intrusions interact with the sedimentary rocks? Notable deformation or alteration?

Crazy Mountains - REALLY good info in this one, but how do they all connect? (hint, use commas to connect sentences and ideas) The content is all there, but it just doesn't read smoothly to convey your thoughts. Also you talk about the structure of the area at the beginning with no other explanation (like there could be in the lead).

Highwood Mountain - Northwest is one word. How did the Wyoming craton forming in the Eocene make this mountain? What happened in the Eocene. What is the evidence of "shallow level degassing, fractional crystallization, and magma mixing" in the rocks aka how do we know that's what happened? Still good info here, but still not enough explanation.

Bearpaw Mountain - Try to keep the writing professional, no "just like," use "similar to" instead. The background info here is much better, but need to connect the info on petrology to the background info. Why do the spinel peridotites give a good representation of the mantle? What is re-enrichment and why is it important in this context? The ending info is good at explaining the mineralogy, but the last sentence should definitely be not at the very end.

OVERALL

Sources are good, definitely use them more in the article though, remember that if it's not an original idea (and it shouldn't be, on a wikipedia page), then cite it.

Change the writing style to flow better while remaining scientific and professional. You have good information and sources, use everything that you can.

Put each major section as it's own header, it also allows you to match up the pictures with the correct paragraph/section (also consider giving each "Mountains" section subheaders to help keep info organized, like formation vs mineralogy)

The pictures themselves are pretty good, some captions can be redone to be more concise (the first one mainly, and the Bearpaw thin section). I'm going to assume all the images are copyright-free because I don't know how to check, but I'd make sure of that just in case.

Main points are the writing/sentence structure, citing more, and organizing the headers.