User talk:Cashworth6/Forebulge

Garrett's Peer Review
The lead gives a good overview of the topic. It provides context as well as an understanding of how the process occurs. However, the language used is technical and may be a little too inaccessible. Saving the more in-depth descriptions for later in the article and providing a more concise lead may be favorable.

The article sections are sensible and are provided in an order that makes sense. Glaciation, tectonics, and the physics sections all are distinct areas that should be split up the way they are. Some of the information from the first lead paragraph could be moved into the tectonics section. The image included is a great diagram that helps to visualize the concept and scale of forces involved.

The coverage is balanced from an opinion standpoint, as the article isn't attempting to push an opinion or viewpoint. The distribution of information also seems reasonable. The tectonics section could use more elaboration. The physics section is short but is well written and should probably be kept as it is. The glacial section does a good job providing a sense of scale with the North Sea example.

The article maintains neutrality. Glaciation is presented as an example of where forebulging can be observed, not the only instance. No opinions or conclusions are pushed through opinionated wording. The use of "can" and "one cause" are great ways to maintain neutrality as demonstrated in this article.

The sources of the article are trustworthy and scholarly. They include review articles, a study, and multiple textbooks. All the sources appear to either be peer-reviewed or textbooks. A good mix of sources are used, so one view doesn't seem to be pushed based on this. A reasonable amount of statements include citations. The tectonics and physics section could use sources in order to lend credibility to technical statements.