User talk:Olindsey6/sandbox

Maddie's Peer Review
Lead section: I felt the lead section effectively describes the look of pancake ice to the reader. I would suggest adding on to the section a little comment on how they form; something like 'Pancake ice is a form of sea ice that consists of round pieces of ice with diameters ranging from 30 centimetres (12 in) to 3 metres (9.8 ft) and thicknesses up to 10 centimetres (3.9 inches) and is the culmination of wave action on slush and/or prexisting ice rind.' This adds a bit more description to the pancake ice besides their size. Otherwise I would say your lead section is detailed and well written!

Structure: The first sentence of the formation process section clearly outlines the two ways pancake ice can form. However, it felt that once these two processes were named, further explanation wasn't really written to follow up. I would suggest going through method (1; water w/ slush) and (2; ice rind breakage) right after the introductory sentence so that it is a little easier to follow. Otherwise what you have written flows nicely and is clear and concise.

Balance of Coverage: I understand this is a draft so there is information that will be added later. I think you have the most important information included here already (description of appearance and formation process). I would suggest a specific example of an ice pancake event and the conditions that led to its formation be described so that the readers' understanding is further enforced. Otherwise you did a great job covering the most important aspects of this topic from what I've read.

Neutral Content: Your draft read like a scientific article. There were no phrases that I felt changed the tone of the content. Everything was written neutrally. Great work! Reliable Sources: All three sources listed are from credible, scientific articles. I have no doubt as a reader that the information provided is accurate and trustworthy. I am sure that as you continue adding to the article that each source will be referenced more than once so that what is written is well supported.

Overall, the information written in the draft is neutral, supported by scientific journals and provides a great overview of the topic. As this is a draft, there is more information that needs to be added to reach a fully realized article but this is a great start. I would suggest expanding upon what you already have, perhaps focusing on examples to illustrate processes, etc. If you keep adding to the article in the same way you have with your draft, I am sure your article will turn out wonderfully! Mrichardsont (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)