User talk:Nworku3/sandbox

Sydney's Peer Review
The lead section gives a good, overall summary of what sheeted dyke complexes are, and how they are formed. The introductory sentence of the lead section does a good job of describing the topic of the article. Since the article has not been broken down into sections yet, you will need to make sure that the lead briefly describes your added sections. Almost everything in the lead is discussed further throughout the article except where you mentioned the way in which sheeted dyke complexes are formed. You stated they form in a "sub-parallel formation", and maybe you could go on and further describe this process. I was able to look up this type of formation, so I got a goodThe article is definitely more complete, and goes into better detail of how this complex occurs. The content added is also way more readable and understandable than that of the original article, but could still use a little more content to make it easy to understand for the average reader. Adding sections to the article would help better organize the content, as well as make it more readable. You could also add a little more information to the exact way sheeted dyke complexes form. Overall, the article was interesting and a good read. understanding of what this process looks like and means, but you might want to create a link, or further describe this process so the average reader understands. The lead is concise, and good in terms of describing the overall process and formation of sheeted dyke complexes.

All content is relevant to the topic. The sources where information was gathered are up-to-date, so content also appears up-to-date. You could add a little more information on the formation, as well as the significance of sheeted dyke complexes.

All content added is neutral. All viewpoints seem pretty balanced, and supporting content for each viewpoint is good. There is no bias or an attempt to persuade the reader in one direction or another.

Most content is backed up by reliable sources, except for the last paragraph, which needs sourcing. The sources listed seem to be thorough, and give sufficient information on the subject. All sources are current. The links in the article work correctly.

The content in the article is generally easy to follow and understandable. There are certain areas in which an average reader would have trouble following terminology, but you used links to other articles to help guide readers through. There are a few parts that could be improved grammatically, such as adding some commas in your more complex sentences. Also, the last sentence in your first paragraph should be split up, as it is a run-on sentence. Content needs to be broken down into sections to better organize article.

The article includes images that enhance understanding of the topic. The image added does a good job of illustrating what the formation looks like. The image is well captioned, and laid out in a visually appealing way. The image adheres to copyright regulations.

Shopkins31 (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)