User talk:Agauker3/sandbox

Alkali Basalt Peer Review
The lead section, and especially the lead sentence, seems a bit too technical. The first sentence is a bit overwhelming, as it jumps straight into the subject's chemical make up with little contextual background. I think it would be better to switch the second half of the first sentence with the entirety of the second sentence, providing the context of where the rock is usually found and what it generally looks like before jumping into the chemical specificities. Alternatively, maybe just have the lead section focus on more general statistics like where the rock is usually found, how it's usually created, a very general overview on the chemical composition, or maybe even a very quick etymology on the words "alkali basalt", and then leave the more specific chemical composition stuff to go in the "Geochemical characterization" or a "Chemical composition" section. The lead section is also pretty short, so more details would be nice. I really like all the Wikipedia links! That was done very well.

There's a very clear general structure to the article, with three separate sections not including the lead. I feel like the "Geochemical characterization" and "Petrography" sections could be combined into some kind of a "Composition" section, but I could see it go either way. However, if they are going to stay as separate sections, I think there needs to be more material in each section to justify it. Additionally, I feel like the the "Geological context" section should be first, providing more context for the subject before going into specifics.

The majority of the article seems to focus on the rock's chemical composition rather than any other components of it. There's very little about where the rock comes from, its uses, its weathering, etc. However, just from a very, very cursory search, it looks like there's not many sources on anything like the uses of specifically alkali basalts or stuff like that, mostly just sources on its chemical composition, so I see how that could be difficult to add in. Also, there's a bit of redundancy in the last sentence of the lead paragraph and the first sentence of the "Geological context" paragraph being almost word for word the exact same.

There doesn't seem to be any type of bias at all in the writing. The article doesn't focus on anything positive or negative about the subject, just provides facts. There's nothing opinionated, it's all just very neutral.

There are currently eight sources listed, four journal articles and four books. It's a nice mix of sources, all of which seem reliable. Everything seems sourced very well except for the very first sentence of the "Geochemical characterization" section, which does not have one listed. It seems like some of the sources are bit old, with four of them (sources 1, 3, 6, and 7) being published over 40 years ago, so it would be nice to see more recent publications. Additionally, it seems like sources 2, 4, and 5 are cited much more heavily than the rest.

MJHeas (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)