User talk:Meninanatureza/sandbox

Hi, my name is Shanty. I will be editing and adding to this article. I believe adding more detailed explanations and images will make the article easier to conceptualize. I would also like to include more sources that would help the Wikipedia user get oriented as well as further information on Aquatic sill formation and its effects on its surrounding environment. Meninanatureza (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sophia's Peer Review
1. The article Aquatic Sill accomplishes giving detailed examples of areas that contain Aquatic sill, while impressively linking important vocabulary definitions that allows the reader to easily understand the article and the concepts and ideas associated with it. The lead section of the page gives a concise yet accurate statement that describes the topic clearly and simply, while still accomplishing its goal without having too much detail. However, I would add at least one more element to the lead section to make it less generic and provide the reader with a bit more depth about how this specific page is different to others about the topic. However, the succinct nature of the lead structure without being too wordy is an element that I find useful and will apply to my own page.

2. I found the structure of the Aquatic Sill page to be well made, as it outlined the different geographical locations where Aquatic Sill can be found, and describes the distinctive features of the aquatic sill at each location. This structure keeps the page interesting for the reader as it provides different, yet engaging examples of a single topic. If I could make any changes to the structure itself, I would provide a small introduction paragraph that gave more in depth detail about aquatic sill. However, I especially admired the attention to detail within each sub-topic and will use that as a guide to add more detail into my own page, as it may be lacking in specifics. Overall, each section is well organized and in a sensible order.

3. There is a good balance of coverage within the page as it offers different geographical locations and doesn't focus on just one specific place, providing a variety of information that keeps the reader interested and informed. A single aspect does not take up too much of the article, but each aspect is explained to a proper degree. If I could improve upon this page, I would add equal coverage on other different topics. I don't believe any subject is off topic and the article reflects coverage represented in published literature. I especially took notice to the detail in each section, and will carry that into my own page.

4. Personally, I found the nature of the article to be very neutral, as I could not sense a perspective from the author. Each resource used was of a non biased nature and provided and most statements in the article are connected to those reliable resources. Additionally, most resources are from respected journals, and there is a clear reflection of different aspects of the topic of aquatic sill. The lack of biased language is a trait that I will carry into my own page.

5. I noticed most statements made one the page were linked to reliable sources, that provided accurate and relevant information. There are no statements attributed to too many sources. If I could offer improvement to the page, I would add more unbiased references to help provide more statements and details to add to the page. Overall, the page is not unbalanced and provides a good amount of information backed by reliable sources.

Sophiaaslam (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Sophia Aslam