User talk:Emmadwilson/sandbox

Madison's Peer Review
Lead evaluation

The added lead section encompasses the added content of the article in a clear and concise way. I would suggest adding a definition of a “geographic sink”, even just adding the word “depression” like the original article had to make the definition even more clear. The lead contains only information presented in the article.

Content evaluation

You did an excellent job of clearing up the confusing wording of the article, as the article was flagged for being too technical. While you expressed wanting to remove that paragraph, I think there are some informative parts that should stay. I think the information regarding “karstic terrain” would be a nice addition to the article if you could find a way to write it to be more readable. Further, I know you said that the definition for the different types of lakes were not clearly defined and often interchanged, but if there were definitions for persistent and intermittent lakes, I think that would be good to add to keep with the flow of the article, as well as clarify the difference between the two. The separation of the paragraphs allows the information to flow nicely. The additional section you added about Anthropogenic Effects is great for learning about why these are important/relevant. The examples you included supplemented the information of the section nicely. All content added is relevant and up-to-date.

Tone and balance evaluation

The content added is neutral with no bias claims made.

Sources and references evaluation

The links for the sources all work, and I like how you cite from many different sources throughout the included content. The sources are all current and reflect the available literature on the topic.

Organization evaluation

The information you provided flows nicely in the organization that you have. I would change the titles from “Lead Section” and “Main Section” when transferring over to Wikipedia, however I figure that's mainly for you to keep track of in your sandbox right now. It is well-organized.

Images and media evaluation

Adding an image would be a great addition to this article! While I understand it may be hard to find, an image showing the different types of lakes would be informative in differentiating them. Including an image of one of the example geographic sinks that you included in the Anthropogenic Effects section would be an enhancement as well. I know the article has two images right now, but additional ones would be great.

Overall impressions

The article is easier to read and comprehend the information presented. I like your idea of changing the article title, and I agree the content more leans towards taking about the lakes instead of the sink itself, but keeping it as geographic sink may make it easier for others to find. Like I mentioned earlier, I really like the section you added about the Anthropogenic Effects, allowing readers to understand the relevance of the geographic sinks. Overall, a great job. MadisonKnowlton (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)