User talk:Aliu321/sandbox

Peer Review:

This article appeared to have prevented a challenge due to the likely lack of accessible and extensive information about it. With that in mind, it bears an interesting topic, and my initial impressions are positive based on the layout and image prominence. With that in mind, it is due a peer review, so I will try to provide something of substance. Looking at the lead, I instantly feel enlightened as to what the topic of the article is. The article has a highest focus on the fossilized nature of the stone, and this is prioritized starting in the introduction, so that works well. The lead does, however, only mention contents of shelly limestone without previewing the history or formation mentioned later. I feel like the lead would benefit from mentioning a quick note about where the stone is found. In terms of redundancy, the first part could probably be rephrased to avoid effectively saying "limestone is limestone." The article initially focuses on the contents of the stone. Then, it describes the formation. Lastly, it describes the chronology of the stone. This particular order does not appear too significant. With that in mind, I believe components, history, and formation would be a better order that is more consistent with the information density presented and with Wikipedia articles in general. The longest section of this article is the part describing the formation and structure of shelly limestone. This does seem to be the most interesting part of the stone, so it is logical that it has this length. I feel as though the historical period for this stone deserves more than a small sentence, though, especially given the fossilized nature. An explanation of why it is considered sedimentary seems unnecessary due to the prevalence of that information elsewhere. Everything appears directly on topic. As this is a tremendously base level article and topic there are not really competing perspectives to consider. It is very neutral in reporting and never attempts to sway the reader. Rather, it simply provides a base overview of the topic at hand. Not only does the author not obviously show a biased perspective, I would say the author likely does not have an opinion on the topic at all. There is no opinionated text in the slightest. Information is never credited to unspecified groups. In addition, the article has no visible positivity or negativity whatsoever; it solely contains neutral reporting. Statements could definitely have clearer citations, as most work appears unsourced. The one source used definitely appears to be a peer reviewed article in a renowned journal, so it is definitely quality. In addition, this source seems to be used properly to back up points. The article would definitely benefit from taking special care to ensure that all facts are well sourced with firm citation documentation. The article definitely provides an excellent overview of a topic I had never heard of. The attention to detail covered in specifying possible component materials and linking them to other Wikipedia articles was phenomenal. With only a quick read, I felt like I had a good simple understanding of the topic. One instant improvement would be adjusting how early on, it says that the "color varies" while later saying the "color is grey." Most importantly, though, is definitely citation to maintain informational trustworthiness. Upon editing this, I realized that I need a better "see also" section, so I am glad to know that now. All around, with a few changes, this will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia as a whole.