User talk:Bburnette6/sandbox

Lead Section
I thought the lead section was overall well written and informative. The first sentence gives exactly the information I needed to understand your topic. I do have few critiques though. In the first sentence, there is subject/verb disagreement between “earthquakes” and “is.” Maybe say “A volcano tectonic earthquake” instead of the plural? Also, this might just be semantics, but maybe after “beneath the surface” the article should clarify that it is the “surface of the Earth.” Also, I thought the example in the last sentence didn’t quite belong in the lead section, but I thought the rest of the lead section was understandable and eloquent.

Structure
I thought the article was well structured. Each paragraph was a distinct topic, and the succession of the topics fit well. I only found one issue in the structure. The last small paragraph, I thought, could be joined with the previous paragraph and still make sense, and then the last paragraph wouldn’t look so small and incomplete. Also, maybe the article should have headings for each topic as the topic changes, to help the reader know what topic they are about to read before they get to the paragraph.

Balance
I did not find any fault with the balance of the article. Each topic was well represented relative to its importance, and none of the writing was biased towards any particular side of an argument. Overall, the writing was well done.

Neutral Content
As I mentioned before, I did not find any bias in the article. The writer does not take any sides or reveal their prejudices, and neither do the sources chosen. The tone is perfectly neutral and well maintained.

Reliable Sources
All of the sources referenced by the article were reliable and well documented. I found that each citation corresponded with the sources chosen and that none of the articles were cited noticeably more than the others.

Emmadwilson (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)