User talk:Jwright388/Clastic wedge/Sachipsharma Peer Review

Peer Review
Great job choosing what content to discuss. I think it works because the article stays it broad and doesn't go into very specific detail about only certain aspects of clastic wedges.

1. Lead section: I think the lead sentence is very good. However, I feel that the rest of the lead section does not really reflect or summarize information of the body of the article. I think there are sentences in the lead section that would be best in the body of the article under some header. Perhaps, there could be a section titled formation.

2. Clear Structure: I think the article is organized sensibly in a chronological way. However, I think new sections with a title header could be created to make it clear what will be discussed. For example, the lead section could be broken up into separate sections.

3. Balanced coverage: I think each section's length is equal to its importance to the subject. However, I do think the article could go more in depth about flysch vs. molasse clastic wedges. Nothing in the article seems unnecessary or off topic. I am not sure if there are different perspectives on clastic wedges, so I am sure if it needs different perspectives to the article. Right now, the information seems to be purely factual. The article does not draw conclusions to convince the reader of one point of view.

4. Neutral content: The article does not make claims about unnamed groups of people. The language is neutral for the most part. However, the line, "Perhaps the best examples of clastic wedges..." could probably be changed to, "some examples of clastic wedges..." because the phrase "Perhaps the best" seems too editorial-like.

5. Reliable sources: All of the sources are from academic journals or textbooks. However, some statements are not cited. For example, the very last sentence and the last sentence of the second to last paragraph could use a citation. Maybe, the article could use another reference because two of the sources are from the same authors.

Improvements: I think the most important thing to improve the article would be to change the sentence structure of most of the sentences, so they are more concise and direct. For example, "As of how such methods relate to that of sedimentary cycles and clastic wedges, they come into effect by shaping and weathering surfaces (allogenic) that will conclude in becoming compacted and cemented (autogenic) to the area of crust...." could be changed to "Sedimentary cycles and clastic wedges come into effect by...". I believe some sections also need clarification. For example, the section, "The conceptual geology of a clastic wedge can be referred to sedimentary cycles; in which is the reoccurring sequence of geological events upon stratigraphic surfaces.[5] Such events can be correlated to that of typical geological structures", it is unclear what "geological events" are being discussed. Some of the terms used also need to be reworded in layman terms: i.e. I don't know what," They begin at the mountain front, thicken considerably landwards of it to a peak depth " means. I am also unfamiliar with the term "conceptual geology". Sachipsharma (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)