User talk:JamesKellerWhite/Paleoarchean

Nicholas Meyer's Peer Review of Paleoarchean
Interesting read. I appreciate how the information presented in the article is dense, succinct, and straight to the point.

LEAD SECTION: Although the article uses specialized terminology, such as "chronometrically", "Archaean Eon", and "Barberton Greenstone Belt", amongst many others, the author presents information in an easy-to-understand manner that assists the understanding of these complex terms. The introduction provides a neat overview of the meaning of the term, "Paleoarchean", which is a historical time period. The author does a good job providing an overview of the entire topic without repeating any information redundantly. The introduction is short, sweet, and straight to the point... A tease for the article to follow.

CLEAR STRUCTURE: The author does a good job separating different categories of information into different paragraphs. One of the paragraphs elaborates on the significance of the time period, while another paragraph delves into the biological significance of this time period in detail. My only suggestion would place headers for each of these paragraphs as each of these topics are different and important in itself, as the author only has one subject topic currently.

BALANCED COVERAGE: The author's explanation and references are balanced in the article. The author uses multiple different, and unrelated sources, when explaining a single concept and doesn't use a single reference to explain multiple concepts, which is effective in providing unbiased and well-rounded justification of information. The article is effective in prioritizing information as it partitions a greater length of the article to more significant discoveries, such as biological significance. The vast majority of the text in the article elaborates on the biological significance of this time period. I would only make a small minor recommendation of having section headers for the already neatly grouped together paragraphs.

NEUTRAL CONTENT: The author is professional, scientific, and unbiased. The author uses terms that are non-emotional, and contain neutral connotations, such as "well-preserved volcanic, shallow-intrusive, and sedimentary rocks", which provides no emotional implications of a scientific description.

RELIABLE SOURCES: The author provides a sufficient number of sources for the amount of information presented in the article. Every sentence contains at least one source and every statement also contains a source. This provides a very rigid presentation of ideas that the reader would be able to follow up on if the reader wants additional information.

Was a pleasure to read.

Nmeyer32 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)