User talk:Manlin Xu/sandbox

Annie's Peer Review
General info

Manlin Xu

User:Manlin Xu/sandbox

Lead Section

I liked how your lead is very concise and straight to the point. It describes what a Lacustrine Plane is at a minimal level and does not give the reader too much detail into what a Lacustrine plain is. The Lead, however, does not contain a brief description of the articles major sections. I think adding another sentence giving short examples of Lacustrine plains will help bring the Lead section together. The Lead section includes information thats present in the article. How will you connect your draft with what is already in the Wikipedia article page. I notice that in the article page, there is already a introduction and background, how is the article going to be organized so that everything fits together.

Structure

I believe all information in the draft is relevant to the article and up to date. The draft is organized in a way where readers can find the different types of Lacustrine plains and read in detail how each plain is formed. I liked how for each type of plain, you provided examples and a short description of that plain. I liked how you had another introduction that gave a more in depth overview of the topic, however, instead of naming it "Overall Introduction" I the header should be more concise and straight forward. Instead of number each topic, I believe it would be better if you have a bigger header with sub headers underneath so that the article looks more organized. Some parts of the draft were a bit confusing, for example, under "inland Basins" you had a section called "Mechanism of Formation:" that I did not understand the purpose of. Also, having "Definition" before you talk about Inland Basins was a bit inconsistent with the way you formatted the other types of Lacustrine plains. Small changes that I recommend is when listing examples, instead of using dash lines you could use bullet points. Also, some of the indentations are a bit off.

Balance of Coverage

Each subtopic is very detailed, however, I do notice that there is definitely more information on Glacial lakes than any of the other types. I would be nice to see in depth examples of differential uplift types and Inland Basin types. The information under "The Use of Lacustrine Plains" is a bit disorganized and confusing. There was no subheading for the examples listed, so I didn't really understand what these examples were for.

Neutral Content

The content added in the draft is neutral and does not try to persuade the reader to pick a side. There are only three types of Lacustrine plains talked about. Are these the only types? Are there more types or are these the most occurring and well known? Other than Glacial Lakes having more information than the other types, I don't see any bias towards a particular position.

Reliable Sources

All the resources were correctly cited and all of the citations under References were used. All the information was backed up by a secondary source, however, I did notice that you citation tended to be after large paragraphs. Because the information is very dense, I think its better to over cite than to under cite. I remember Dr. Glass mentioning something in that context. All the sources are current and all the link work bringing me to the correct web page. Looking through the cited sources, they all seem to correlate with the topic you are talking about. The image on the Wikipedia page fits the topic of the subject and is correctly cited as well. Aliu321 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)