User talk:Aminatangom/sandbox

Lead section
The lead section concisely and clearly defines the topic of interest. I did not know what Biogenuous Ooze was prior to reading this article, and the lead section was a great introduction. It could be made more comprehensive by mentioning the two kinds of sediment. In addition, the apostrophe after the word “organism” should be written as “organisms’” rather than “organism’s.” The lead section is neutral and is not redundant. Consider wikilinking “seafloor” (redirecting to “Seabed”).

Structure and balance
In general, I felt that this first draft is well-organized. As someone without prior knowledge of this topic, I felt that the organization helped me learn about biogenous ooze. However, I did feel that there were a couple of ways in which the organization could be improved. I did feel as though the composition section was redundant. I would consider moving the first paragraph into the introductory section, or creating a new section titled “Formation” for this paragraph and elaborating a little. The second paragraph could be moved to the “Types of biogenous sediments” section, where it might make a good introductory paragraph. Titles and section headers in Wikipedia are capitalized sentence-style, so the only the word “Types” should be capitalized in this section. Also consider changing the title of the section to “Types of biogenous ooze” for greater clarity. Consider moving the “Distribution” section below the “Types of biogenous ooze” it might provide a more natural flow of information. A few sentences from the “Types of biogenous sediments” section might be more appropriately placed in the “Distribution” section.

The section “Determination of climate history” is appropriately placed; however, only the first word in its title should be capitalized.

The figures are appropriate for the article, and are well-selected. They really helped with my understanding of the topic. However, I noticed that the figures lacked detailed captions. Consider adding captions to the figures, to provide context and to help the reader better understand them. Wikiedits1996 (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article was neutral; it was apparent that no viewpoints were favored, and that no erroneous assertions were made. The article did a good job of providing an unbiased description of the topic at hand. No phrases in the article suggest any kind of viewpoint or opinion.