User talk:Cli681/sandbox

Lead section
The lead section is minimal and very to the point. The lead section in the sandbox draft is missing a definition of what surface erosion is. The lead section summarizes the subparagraphs but it leaves out the main definition that someone would look for when looking up erosion surface on wikipedia. Examples on different types of erosion or actual places about where erosion occurs and how could be introduced to build into an additional subsection.

A clear structure
The structure of the article in the sand box mentions both ways to measure surface erosion and a particular type of surface erosion relating specifically to a road surface. These are different aspects of the article so it’s good that they are in their own sections, the difference between the two is easily understandable. Maybe the section on road surface erosion should come before the section on measuring an erosion surface, simply because if someone were to look up erosion surface, they may want to read about the different types of erosion surfaces before reading more technically about how to measure surface erosion. The subsection ‘Road Surface Erosion’ has a well-placed citation with the statistic on mountains in Idaho; however, it may be more accurate if the word road was included in the sentence to avoid the potential misconception that the statistic applies to the natural mountain face. Although, this may just be a given considering that the subsection is specifically road surface erosion.

Balanced Coverage
It would be very beneficial to add a section on surface erosion in nature. Some ideas off the top of my head could be a section including the erosion of Independence Rock in Wyoming (wind erosion), or possibly valley carvings in Teton National park due to glacial activity. These are just examples of different places where surface erosion has occurred. The length of the two sections in the sandbox draft seem to be fitting for the information provided in them. The section on measurement of an erosion surface introduces two different types of measurement and defines them to conclude the section. Both sections are relevant to the article topic although the draft personally leaves me wanting to read more about surface erosion of different landscapes or of erosion in nature. Trail erosion is another sub-idea that I think is relevant to surface erosion. Also, in the road surface erosion section the statement mentioning the relationship between slope steepness and rate of erosion could be elaborated on to include an idea on the mechanics of why that occurs. The draft does not try to convince me to accept any particular point of view.

Neutral content
This article does have a neutral perspective. I, in no way feel as if I have been persuaded in any manner to take on a certain viewpoint of erosion surfaces. There are no biased words or phrases. At this moment there seems to be a decent differentiation between providing examples of the topic and explaining mechanisms of measurements, so I see that there has been a clear reflection of different aspects on surface erosion.

Reliable sources
The two sources used in the sandbox draft are good sources. One is an article published in Earth-Science Reviews and the other was published in Environmental Modeling and Software. Both of these sources are reliable journal articles. Each source was used once in the sandbox draft, so this is a balanced array of source usage. While these are great sources to use it does seem as though there are some statements made that are not a type of common sense, so I believe that more citations could be added or the use of additional sources to support a claim would be very beneficial too.Sharrison49 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)