User talk:Chessowen/Polar drift

Paul's Peer Review
In the given article, I feel as thought the lead provides a general description of the topic. The lead is concise and easy to understand. Merely looking at the lead section, I understand the importance of the article and a general concept of the article to come. After reading the article, I feel like the lead reflects the most important aspects of the topic. The lead mentions the properties of polar drift such as, "variations in the flow of molten iron in Earth's outer core" which isn't a main focus in the following sections of the article. However, the article focus on the north and south poles for the most part, which are included in the lead. Considering the given information, I think the lead isn't missing anything or redunant in any means.

I think the article's structure is in a good state. Following the lead, the article has three main body sentences or paragraphs. The first two mention the Earth's two poles (North and South), and how polar drift has affected them. The following section also mentions the same topic, but continues to mention a more recent update on the status of the Magnetic Poles.

As for the coverage, I feel like each topics coverage was well allocated. No particular section felt as if it were 'given too much' or 'given too little' attention. The three body sections were about the same length and covered a similar amount of information. None of the sections felt unnecessary or redundant. One aspect that could be improved is the lack coverage on the main topic itself. Looking at the article, I'm aware of the relationship between polar drift and the magentic poles, but I feel like information beyond that is lacking.

I feel like the article is neutral. The information itself doesn't have much room for opinion-based views so that helps keep the topic neutral. Furthermore, the information provided is mostly scientific data or definitions. The wording throughout the article didn't feel like it had intentions of swaying the audience to a certain view.

Many of the sources the author referenced seems to originate from reliable sources (mainly government sites). There are few less reliable sites that the author referenced, but they were mainly used for data and sanctioned with government support. I feel like the author did well in relying on numerous sources, making sure not to lean to much on one point of view or arguement.

For the most part, I think the article is in a great state. The main potential for improvement is the expansion of coverage on the topic. It feels as though many of the aspects of polar drift are left unmentioned. Otherwise, the article has great structure and maintained a neutral and professional stance on the topic. Great job!

PJPark02 (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)PJPark02