User talk:MsEditor113/Sorting (sediment)

Peer Review
Lead section

Hi! Your article layout is effective, and your choices of graphics are illuminating. It's helpful that your lead section distinguishes between sorting, which refers to the distribution of grain sizes in deposits/rocks, as opposed to crystallite size, which refers specifically to the sizes of crystals. The lead section also mentions that crystallite is the building block of a grain, which is interesting. It would be helpful to build this idea more, because it isn't totally clear what the relationship is between a crystallite and a grain. Also, it would be helpful to talk about the specific sorting processes in your lead paragraph more i.e. define/distinguish aeolian and fluvial processes. Do these processes deposit or remove grains? Also, it would be helpful to contextualize what sorting is-- in other words, why do we study it/why is it relevant? This would help the reader understand where the sorting parameters come from.

Structure

The movement from the parameters into the two different types of processes make sense conceptually.The Fluvial Processes section is still a work in progress, which is totally fine. The lead paragraph could reflect the content of the other sections more effectively i.e. define the significance of soil parameters and the two different types of processes. Also, the first sentence of the "Processes Involved in Sorting" could be rewritten to be more clear grammatically. It currently reads: "Sediment sorting is influenced by grain sizes of sediment, the processes involved in its transport, deposition, and post-deposition processes such as winnowing." The commas are currently a little confusing when reading this sentence as a list. The punctuation could be reworked so that the sentence looks more like: "Sediment sorting is influenced by: grain sizes of sediment; processes involved in grain transport; deposition; and post-deposition processes, such as winnowing." This sentence structure is easier to follow as a reader.

Balance

Overall, the article is well balanced, and there is definitely room for more detail. One observation is that the sentence at the bottom of the article ("Rocks derived from well sorted sediments are commonly both porous and permeable, while poorly sorted rocks have low porosity and low permeability, particularly when fine grained") doesn't seem to fit into the Fluvial Processes section. Maybe this detail could be moved into the Parameters section? This might make sense since the parameters presumably are used to describe sedimentary rocks. That decision is definitely up to your discretion, but I do think it would be helpful to somehow incorporate more thoroughly the description of sedimentary rocks using sorting parameters.

Neutrality and Sources

Your article reads neutrally in terms of tone, and your sources look reliable. Notably, there are two different citations of Earth-Science Reviews, which isn't necessarily a problem, but it's always nice when a variety of journals are used to give the article a more distinct sense of reliability. That said, the citations you already have are perfectly fine, and it is definitely possible to build some more article content while relying on the sources already cited. Also, there is a typo in the Fluvial Processes section; "upstream" is currently written as "upstrea." Other than that little detail, the quality of your writing is really nice. Great work! Knowledgengine (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)