User talk:Coalnoise/sandbox

Peer Review from Daniel tamas
Firstly the page is clearly well organized with many sections and sub-sections seen in the contents box. Your paper was well cited with good references and seemed to have every keyword linked to their specific page which is good. The order of events was very easy to follow and had plenty of detail to explain each section well. However, some dates (million years ago) added to the section headings might help define each individual episode of movement. Your intro paragraph is well written to get the quick overview of the main points from each time period which is perfect for people who simply need a quick description of the tectonic evolution of Patagonia.

The only real suggestion I have is that you could add maps of movement and arrangement of land masses to show how they were oriented at different points in time if you can find them on other Wikipedia pages. Other than that your article is very well written and very close to a final draft already. Good Job!

Peer Review
Wow Cole! This is impressive, you did a very good job summarizing the tectonic evolution while remaining concise. It took me quite a while to read, but I did understand the points you were trying to get across.The only thing I can think of to improve your article would be to add more figures. If you could somehow show its breakup from Gondwana, including where the rift may have been that would be huge.

I used the peer review guidelines that Wikipedia suggested

"In general, the best Wikipedia articles have five elements"

A lead section that is easy to understand:

The first time reading your overview I found it a little difficult to interpret what was going on, mostly because there was so much packed in. However once I read over the rest of your article and came back, it became much more clear. Also your overview was accurate, meaning that you covered everything you mentioned in it.

A clear structure:

The structure is in chronological order and very easy to follow. The only thing I could say is that adding more specific dates could be helpful, as well as giving periods of time for how long certain events lasted.

Balanced coverage

You covered a great deal on the early tectonic history. The Cretaceous-Cenozoic seems to be much shorter, but perhaps that is due to the nature of the history.

Neutral content:

You did a great job on explaining the pros and cons for both of the theories about Patagonia's origin. Also the figure is very helpful and easy to read.

Reliable sources:

You definitely did your research as you had a wide variety of references. All the sources seemed to be peer reviewed and scholarly from what I could tell.

(Ryleymac (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)))