User talk:Eheb03/Lava field

Lead
You haven't incorporated the new lead to your article yet, but I do have a suggestion. My brain had a hiccup looking at "subaerial" which, to me, implied that there were aerial lava flows. I think you mean that it's just lava that seeps out of the ground and doesn't erupt in a dramatic manner, but something to think about. I don't know if "surface" would work in place of it since I'm not sure if it wasn't used for a reason. The rest of the first paragraph is great and provides a good summary. I think that the language feels very conversational, which I'm not sure if you were going for or not. The phrases like "...or even..." and "...typically dark, nearly black..." just can be a little clunky when scanning, in my opinion.

Content
As my grandfather would say, morphology is a ten-dollar word. I would define it in simple terms since the scope of this article isn't terribly deep and it will be seen by a base that may not be as scientifically knowledgeable (think 5th grader doing class research). This can be fixed by simply adding (composition) after the first mention of it in the section if you don't want to do an entire sentence about it. The rest of the section is just *chef's kiss*. It's a wonderfully written piece, I'd be happy to stumble across it and it told me everything I wanted to know. I would try to link to more "See also" pages at the bottom, as I'm sure that even linking the basic ones like "Lava" can make an improvement and help people find new things. I might add more about Hawaii in examples since it is where we got the names for the types of lava.

Quick grammar and formatting note: Add the accented mark above the ā in "pāhoehoe" to the Morphology section you had drafted and anywhere else you plan to use it in the article. I'd also not mix km2 and sq mi, either use the superscript or make it sq km, and the same goes for the cubic volume.

Tone and Balance
I mentioned earlier that the intro of the original article does feel a tad conversational and can be jarring to skim through, but the rest of it is perfectly fine. Your section that you drafted was great as well, it's hard to be biased when it comes to something as universal as lava fields, but I just wanted you to know that the style you've been writing in is perfect. I think that the balance is good between what existed for the explanation of formations/examples and what you will be adding to the article. The computer modeling part is represented in the lead and covered in about equal detail in your draft, so I see no issue with it being an overpowering section or anything like that.

Sources and References
I know that it's common knowledge to just blindly trust information from USGS and the like, because that's what I'd do as well, but you should include a reference to the time you mention, "According to the US Geological Survey..." in case someone wants to use it for their own research. Finding sources for the material the requires citing is something that I would make a priority, if you can't then don't feel bad about changing or removing the information. All the references are in working order and give relevant information to what they were cited to, so I don't see a reason to change anything there.

Organization
I don't know how you plan to do everything with the draft and original put together, but I like the current organization of the article. I would consider making another section for examples and lump the last paragraph of the original article into that. Basically combining the last paragraph and the "Notable examples" sections, as it doesn't really fit into the explanation of what exactly a field is and how it forms. The pictures are good and look good on the side that they are on.

Images and Media
I might try to show some satellite images of the lava fields since those are mentioned in the original article, but I can't imagine those are easy to come by with the right licensing. The captions of the images that are there are good and fit well.

Overall Impressions
The original article seemed a bit short and lackluster. It gave information but not a whole lot, and I think your addition is going to change that completely. The article will be fully-fledged after that, I think the only expansions that you could do would fall out of the scope of general lava fields, so you're doing great. I don't get any odd vibes from bias or writing style, which is why I've been referring to the original article as "yours", because I can't tell the difference between what I know you've written and what you haven't. I would definitely be happy to see this article in its final state. Happy editing and good luck! Kikoeta (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)