User talk:Jsamuel1616/Alcove (landform)

Samuel Choi's Peer Review
1) A lead section that is easy to understand.

It is overall well summarized and easy to understand. However, I prefer you to reorder some sentences for your lead section. You started the article by explaining how Alcoves are created, but it is better to give the definition of the article's title first. Those methods and details are coming after the definition of the topic. and I prefer to have a straight definition of Alcove.

2) A clear structure.

It was a perfect idea to separate the locations of Alcove on Earth to have more detailed information with more clarification. The order and separation between lead section was clear. I think using more images might help your article to be presented in a better way.

3) Balanced coverage.

All the sections seems important and has a clear purpose. Your article does not seem to draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view. However, as I said before, your article is missing a clear definition of the topic Alcove and you need more images to provide an example.

4) Neutral content.

There is no strong or exaggerated words or phrases that do not feel neutral. The article does not make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people, and it also does not show any biased view. The article is simply informing about the Alcove and it's location, and what happens in specific cases.

5) Reliable sources.

Two sources were a reliable and clear source. One was a textbook and one was a reliable journal from nature. However, I am curious about the source for the second source. (Portyankina, Ganna; Aye, K. -Michael (2018), Soare, Richard J.; Conway, Susan J.; Clifford, Stephen M. (eds.), "Chapter 6 - CO2-Driven Geomorphological Processes: Landscape Evolution", Dynamic Mars, Elsevier, pp. 187–205, ISBN 978-0-12-813018-6, retrieved 2023-03-28) I searched for this source, but I was not able to find any results from it. I think it would be better to find a more reliable source for this one. Most of the statements were sourced and cited, but I think it is better to cite more on the article just for clarification.

I really enjoyed reading your article. and it was well covered. The article was clear to understand, neutral tone, and well organized. There are some places to fix or add some details, but I believe you did really great on this assignment. Thank you for the article.Student1254 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)