User talk:Arimeris3/sandbox

Chandler's Peer Review
The lead section for the Cropland section in the sandbox is relatively short. I do think, however, that the lead section does not need to be that long for a section like this. I find the information contained within the opening paragraph informative and straight to the point.

In regards to structure, the section needs to be a little larger to analyze the structure of the article. I'd love to hear more about why croplands are controversial, I'd really like to learn more about croplands in general. I will say however, that there is a good leaping point for information, and I'd for the topic to be expounded upon.

In reference to balance, this is a concise and to the point article. This section does not waste time drifting into other subjects, or retreading the same subject. This article does a great job in this regard.

This article is neutral in its presentation. I simply presents what facts are available, and moves on. Though I still do wish, that there was a little more about the controversies with croplands. This is still a solid part of the article.

Both sources used to build the Cropland article are strong and reliable in nature. One appears to come from a reputable scientific article, while the other source comes from a book that is related to the given topic. I find both of these sources reliable and relevant to the article.Cjenkins67 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)