User talk:AnnikaET/sandbox

Peer Review
Excelled at improving and developing strategies to edit/create a better Siberian traps article. Displayed strong use of sources while maintaining relevant and neutral information. Overall, the changes to the article improve its clarity and presentation. However, the draft would benefit from some editing to account for some grammatical errors. Continue editing your draft, and I'm sure your addition to the article will be beneficial to readers. Nataliezahrebelny (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review for Siberian Traps by Abineaga Muralitharan
Peer Review

Section: Impact on prehistoric life First paragraph on extinction event is very clear and concise, however a resource citation is needed for this information.In the second paragraph; the term 'lethally" sounds awkward and there could be better term used and it should be stated where Utah is located. The last paragraph is very clearly written with an easily understandable explanation with a good amount of detail. Also, all the content is neutral which is good. There needs to be more resources used or cited throughout this section Section: Nickel deposits This section is very well written and there is a good amount of information present to back up statements.

Overall, the rough draft is well written with a good amount of information and detail. There is an evident structure and the 3 current sources present are viable sources, however more sources are needed to back up the information written.

Abineaga.m (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Abineaga.mAbineaga.m (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)