User talk:Asingh757/sandbox

Asingh's Peer Review
1. The lead of this article does a good job at introducing what the topic is and its importance. After reading the lead I felt like I knew where the rest of the article was headed and why an article about this topic is important. After reading the rest of the article, the lead still seems like a good reflection of the article as a whole and does a good job acting as an introduction. I feel as if you were to read the lead alone you would leave the article knowing what the topic is about on a basic level and would understand its significance.

2. The sections are organized very clearly, broken up into two sections: one speaking about glacial isostatic depression and another about Greenland's isostatic depression. The first section gives information about what happens when a glacier in general causes an isostatic depression and the section about Greenland speaks about a major example of this phenomenon occurring and why it has special significance. The only thing I would change when it comes to section structure would be to change the title of the second section to "Isostatic Depression in Greenland" rather than "Greenland Isostatic Depression".

3. Overall, this article references two sources, and it generally uses them in a balanced manner. It references the first source twice throughout the article and the second source once in the article. Each time a source was referenced it was while speaking about a different aspect of the articles and the references were placed in appropriate locations.

4. This article is definitely neutral. It does not attempt to persuade the reader in any direction as it contains no opposing viewpoints to speak about. This article states, in a neutral and unbiased tone, facts about isostatic depression and gives examples of it occurring in the world. There are no statements which imply positive or negative connotations, or focus too heavily one a viewpoint.

5. The first reference in the article is from a peer reviewed, scientific article and seems like an entirely reliable source. The second source also seems to be a scientific paper, however, the doi link listed in the reference section doesn't function as a link. As stated previously, the article properly references sources when needed and does not heavily favor one source over the other.

Overall I was most impressed by this article's clear structure and succinct covering of the topic. It was instantly made clear from the introduction what the topic was, and the article was organized in a straightforward structure. As of now the only major thing I would suggest to improve the article would be to cut down on or define some of the scientific jargon. It makes some of the sentences hard to understand without looking up what those words mean. It is useful that Wikilinks are provided to define what most of these terms mean, but it would still be nice to make the article itself more understandable and easy to read. Additionally, as a whole the article does seem a bit short, having not done the research myself it is entirely possible that this is an adequate covering of the topic, but if there were a way to speak more about the topic I think the additions would greatly improve the article.

Dadams305 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)