User talk:N8mitchell/Continental fragment

Nate Mitchell's Peer Review by Jordan Artis
1) Lead Section Review:

- The lead sentence is phenomenal. It is concise and states just enough information to give a quick summary but not too much to overload readers with information that they do not yet know anything about. After reading the rest of the article the lead gives most of its weight to distinguishing what is a continental fragment and what is not considered a continental fragment/microcontinent. The paragraph after the lead goes on to talk about features of continental fragments like thickness, length and density. I feel as though this information is good as it is because it provides readers with the quick background of its features which allows the readers to better visualize these fragments.

2) Clear Structure Review:

- The article itself has tremendous information. The information is written clearly and in language that easily understandable, however, the main body of the article lacks sections and this could create some confusion. I would suggest keeping the article structured as is but after the lead sentence maybe add a section called: Continental Fragments Features. After the second paragraph add another section called: Zones and Faults. And then maybe have one last section for the last two paragraphs called: Examples of Continental Fragments. You even discuss the controversy of categorizing some islands as continental fragments, which was incredibly interesting but without a section for it, I feel as though it could get buried in the rest of the information provided. So I would even suggest creating another separate section for that last paragraph called: Controversy or The Debate of Classification. Ultimately, the information is wonderful, I would just add section headers to ensure that readers grasp onto all of the information and nothing is overlooked.

3) Balanced Coverage Review:

- The article does an amazing job at staying on-topic. It provides enough information to peak interest to look into the topic further outside of the article but does not veer far away from the topic as a whole. I would add a little more information surrounding the controversy of the designation of the Indonesian Archipelago Islands as this was incredibly interesting to the point I would love to do more research on it myself. However, this is the shortest paragraph in the article. I would add one to two more sentences to flush out the controversy a bit more because I feel as though if most readers see the word "controversy" their interest will be immediately peaked and this would be a great place to hook the reader in a tad bit more. The article does not try to get the reader to accept a particular view point and even when talking about the controversy the article does not state a particular opinion just the area of controversy. In summary, the coverage is balanced but like I stated earlier, the last paragraph is really interesting but it can leave readers asking why the controversy exists so maybe just add a sentence or two saying why the controversy exists within those islands to conclude the article.

4) Neutral Content Review:

- I do not think I could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article. The author does a great job of staying on topic and not inserting their viewpoint on certain issues. For example, the author does have one line that states, "Not all islands can be considered microcontinents...", however, this information does not appear one-sided because it is quickly followed up by scientific reasoning as for why some islands can be considered microcontinents and others cannot be. The article did a very good job of stating why some things cannot be classified as something without appearing biased. All in all, the article is very well-written and does not leave me feeling as though the information is one-sided or subjective.

5) Reliable Sources Review:

- The article has a lot of references and they all come from reliable sources. Many of the references are either from peer reviewed journals, books on the topic or scientific webpages. No reference is attributed to a statement more than once which means the article does not rely too heavily on a single reference. Each reference is accurately presented with the correct statements and the article is also linked to many other Wikipedia articles which further helps understanding the topic. In conclusion, the references are reliable, presented accurately and balanced throughout the article.

Main Points of My Review: Information is clear, presented accurately and balanced. The main(and honestly only)improvements I would suggest making are: adding section headers and adding no more than 2 sentences to the last paragraph that discuss the controversy surrounding the designation of the islands in the eastern Indonesian Archipelago and I believe that these sentences should focus on why there is controversy and who disagrees about the designation of these islands as continental fragments (i.e. do scientists disagree, do residents of the island disagree, do international actors disagree, etc.). Other than those two things, wonderful job!! Jeartis17 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)