User talk:Karlilefort

Peer Review #1
Article looks great! I will offer my comments on the different sections below for the Geology of Iceland Page.

Lead Section: Looks good, I think it does a good job of displaying the importance of the Geology of Iceland to geologists. It seems to contain all the important information too.

Structure: The structure isn't bad here. The only thing I would suggest would be to move the ""Glacial geology" section up above rock types, as the lead makes it seem that this is an important part of the article.

Balance: Nothing seems off topic here and it seems to include everything important. Maybe a little more info on its geological importance.

Neutral: This article does a great job of not displaying bias. Especially in the Human impact section, where more words could be added giving a personal bias, but instead it is just links to the events listed.

Sources: The sources listed look good, although maybe adding a few more would go a long way. Possibly and studies done by geologist? Just and idea.

Joecalabro (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Karlilefort, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review #1
Hi Karlilefort,

It was interesting to learn about the geology of Iceland from your article. I was surprised at how short the article appeared at first glance, but then I realized that it has many links to other articles that go into more depth on particular aspects. From reading the lead for the first time, I felt like I got a good broad overview of the geologic history of Iceland, with some important details but not excessive detail. After reading the whole article, I observed that its structure was essentially entirely based on the different aspects of Iceland's geologic features and history. In the lead, however, it did not seem to me like there was even a touch of information about these geological concepts, such as Iceland's rocks, tectonics, and glaciers.

Since I am not a geology expert, I was struggling to work with the structure of the article, mainly because a lot of the terms were not explained in the article, and instead were linked to other Wikipedia articles that explained them. I do think the outline of the structure makes sense, and I understand that linking to other articles saves words and space in this article. I think there is room for you to elaborate on the bullets listed throughout the articles as they pertain to the geology of Iceland. I do not, however, think that you need to explain what the concepts are in general. If readers don't know what they are, they should consult the articles that are conveniently linked, which give a general explanation of the bullets that the article lists.

Assessing the balance of the article can be difficult because some of the sections that appear to be too short at first glance actually provide links to other Wikipedia articles that are all about those sections. The text alone on the article itself does not contain a sufficient amount of information on any of its sections, but that is because of the nature of the way that the article is set up to link to other articles. Perhaps you could add information from those links into your own article and cite the source. That way this article itself can provide a more comprehensive description of the geology of Iceland. I do not think the article should rely on other links as heavily as it does, but instead should be more self-sufficient, with the links serving the purpose of providing additional information but not the fundamental information on the subject.

Geology is a very hard-sciency topic. It naturally follows that there is not any bias in the article, that I could detect anyway. The article simply covers the different important facts about the geology of Iceland, without any connotations or implied feelings behind the writing. Something you can keep in mind though when deciding what edits to make is how much certain geological aspects of Iceland are covered relative to others. For example, the "Active tectonics" section is significantly longer than the "Glacial geology" section. On another note, there are some unnamed claims, but they usually do have citations with them, so perhaps it is not that these claims are biased, but that the sources of information are not included in word form in order to be concise. Ex. In the lead: "The plume is believed to have caused..."

The article has reliable references listed and cited appropriately, but there are various places that say "citation needed," for which you might consider trying to verify the information in the article with a reliable source. This may require adding additional sources that you find to the references section. Adding more references is generally a good indicator that your edits improved the quality of the information in the article. I don't know about the information in the links, but the article itself provides minimal detail about the specific geological aspects, and typically only has one source cited in each section. The article could be improved by the addition of more information from a greater variety and balance of sources.

Good luck in creating a more clear and comprehensive article on the geology of Iceland.

Bbkesler (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)