User talk:MadisonKnowlton/sandbox

Madison Knowlton Peer Review
LEAD SECTION Looking at the lead section, I feel satisfied that I know the significance of the lysocline, and the basic, information that is expanded later on in the article. After reading the rest of the article, the lead section still provides a thorough overview of the most important information, without emphasizing certain sections over others. Nothing is redundant, however I do feel that there needs to be something mentioned that references the new paragraph about the saturation.

STRUCTURE Looking at the article itself and the draft text, I am a little puzzled about what the order of the article will be, since the old article and draft text are separated- are the draft text and old article just going to be in the order in which they are shown, with the draft text first and the old article second? Assuming this is the case, the order of the sections is still slightly confusing, because there are no sub-sections in the article beyond “See Also” or “References”, and nothing in the draft text that shows any either. I believe that grouping the text into sections would make the article more presentable and easier to read or follow.

BALANCE OF COVERAGE Each section’s length does seem to correspond to its importance in the article, and none of the sections seem unnecessary, however again it is difficult to tell at first glance because of the organization. Some of the information in the paragraphs feel repetitive, particularly concerning depth and calcite, although once again this could be due to the apparent groupings. Nothing seems off topic and all relevant perspectives in the published literature are represented, with no significant ones missing. There is no present bias, since the it is clear the article doesn’t favor any particular point of view.

NEUTRAL CONTENT It would be difficult to guess the perspective of the author by simply reading the article, which indicates an overarching neutral one. No phrases seemed significantly non-neutral, and no discernible claims are made on the behalf of unnamed groups or people. None of the information is evidently or overtly positive or negative, so the details about the lysocline presented in the article are clear and informative.

RELIABLE SOURCES Most statements in the article are connected to reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journal articles and textbooks. A significant amount of the draft text appears to draw from the first reference in the sandbox (Treatise on Geochemistry), however this may be because the 3rd paragraph (2nd long paragraph) in the draft text does not contain any citations until the end, so it appears that the bulk of its statements draw from same reference as the preceding paragraph. In the original article, it is also unclear which source the third paragraph draws from, as there are no citations until the end. This also makes it difficult to tell if there the article is truly unbalanced or simply has statements that do not have a citation, so I would suggest reviewing the placement and frequency of them. However, the information does seem to be presented accurately from the references. Aaslam30 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)