User talk:Jeartis17/Mesoarchean

Lead Section
After only looking at the lead section by itself, I have a good understanding of the article. The lead mostly reflects the article, but it does not have any mention of the early microbial life or chemical impacts, both of which are sections in the article. It doesn't seem like anything else important is missing. Also, it mentions that the Supercontinent Vaalbara broke up during this time period. My Wikipedia article is on the Paleoarchean, so I have done some research on Vaalbara. My research has mostly focused on its formation, but I'm fairly sure it didn't break up during the Mesoarchean; several articles I've read have talked about its existence in the Neoarchean era.

Structure
I think the article has a good structure. The three sections are distinct and separated well; each one has a clear purpose and gives information that is relevant to the article as a whole. The order of the sections is fine; for this article, I don't think it really matters how you organize them unless one references the other. I am having some trouble understanding the section on Modern-Style subduction; you may want to rewrite it to make it more clear or link to other Wikipedia articles with additional information.

Balanced Coverage
The sections have good lengths. You might want to add more information to the last section because it is shorter than the others. The first section is about Modern-style subduction, but the article does not mention anything else about plate tectonics during this era. If you can find enough information, I think that you should try to add another section on plate tectonics in addition to the one on subduction.

Neutrality
The article seems to come from a neutral viewpoint. I obviously am not very knowledgeable about this topic, so it is hard for me to tell if any important perspectives are missing. However, looking at your sources, it seems you accurately convey the information they contain without adding any bias of your own. However, each section only comes from a single source. You could have issues with neutrality if the authors of the articles were biased in their coverage of the topic.