User talk:Jmarsh36/Cabled observatory

Peer Review
Lead section:

The introductory paragraph starts off strongly with concise and easy to understand information. The lead sentence perfectly encapsulates the definition of a cabled observatory, making the reader satisfied once they have read it. It also provides a good overview of the rest of the article in the other sections. The only thing involving the lead sentence is that it could work without the “Definition” in front. Other than that, the lead paragraph was a great way to start off your article.

Structure:

The structure of the article is strong and provides many sub headers to differentiate between topics. The first subtopic, “On-board sensors,” goes more in depth about the capabilities and instrumentation that these observatories in the ocean provide, which also perfectly relates back to the lead paragraph. The second subtopic, “Comparison with other data collection methods,” illustrates the significance of these observatories and compares it to other methods in the ocean, which provide a better understanding of how important these are, strengthening the structure of the article. The picture also strengthens the structure as it gives a visual representation which helps the reader understand the topic a bit more. One suggestion would be to include many wiki links throughout the article for certain words to give the reader more information.

Balanced coverage:

Each section in the article is sufficiently equal in importance and with a good balanced coverage of information. Different sections talk about a range of information of observatories including their usage, sensors, comparison, and examples. Nothing seems to be off-topic and the article reflects all the perspectives represented in the published literature. There is more information presented in the comparison section, but it does not overdo its purpose.

Neutral content:

The tone of the article, overall, follows a neutral point of view while explaining and contrasting between details. The article does a great job remaining neutral and not leaning towards one side; perfectly remains as a clear reflection of various topics and does not focus too much on either positive or negative information.

Reliable sources:

             The article uses good, reliable sources and correctly references them throughout the article. The sources include a variety of information covering the topic which is excellent for the article. More information could also be derived from source 1 and be included in the article but other than that, the article is written with detail. Great job! Pvera28 (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)