User talk:Morthous3/Glaciokarst

Sam's Peer Review
I feel like the lead section has done a great job introducing the topic of glaciokarst topography. The topic is explained in a lead sentence and a summary of the formation and characteristics of glaciokarsts. The introductory paragraph does a good job of not going too far into detail about the characteristics and formation of glaciokarsts, but rather outlines each that are present as their own subsections in the article. I also liked the brief list of examples of glaciokarst topography at the end of the introduction. My suggestions would be to separate the first sentence from the rest of the paragraph and to add a few wikilinks to words such as dissolution, soluble, and geological so that people can have a quick reference for those terms if they are unsure of their meaning.

The article definitely has a clear structure. Each section is well defined, and the information present in the characteristics section and the formation section are relevant to that specific section. Each section has a distinct flow that is easy to follow, and the information presented is in a sensible order within each section. I would suggest moving the formation section above the characteristics section, as I feel like that would make more sense chronologically to talk about formation first and then characteristics. I would also suggest splitting the block of text within each section into 2 or 3 separate paragraphs per section. That way, the information presented could be easier to follow. For example, a new paragraph could be started in the characteristics section with the example of Velez Mountain being given.

The article does a good job of balancing coverage of information presented in the introduction. One aspect of glaciokarst topography does not take over the entire article. Each section balances information from all of the sources well, and information is presented and flows in a way that educates the reader about glaciokarst topography without rambling for too long or using too much scientific jargon that would be difficult to understand. The article also stays on topic, and it presents the information of the sources in a non-biased manner. I don't really have any suggestions here, as the article is balanced well and the flow of information is concise and educative.

An unbiased tone is used throughout the article to give information about the topic. There are no opinionated words or phrases used, only concise information is presented in a scientific manor. It's obvious that the point of the article is to educate readers about glaciokarst topography, not to make adopt a point of view about the formations. I have no suggestions here, as the article maintains a neutral tone throughout.

6 out of 7 of the article's listed sources are scientific, with the majority of those being from textbook pages. The one other source seems reliable as well, as it is an article about glaciokarst formation from the National Park Service. All informative statements within the article are presented well from source material, and every source is used throughout the article in a balanced manner.

Overall, the article is very well done with only a few suggestions about adding wikilinks and changing some formatting that I have which would improve the article in my opinion.

Samuel Jabaley (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)