User talk:Rwalter00/sandbox

Rachel's Peer Review
1. Lead Section

I like how straight to the point your introduction was. It's definitely useful that you included "salt" in parenthesis in the title, since there are other understandings of bittern in non-geochemical contexts. Also, it's nice that you Wiki-linked the few chemicals that you listed in the first paragraph. I do think it would be more helpful if you included one more sentence at the end of the intro about how bitterns are most commonly used. I see that you go into more detail in the "Uses" section of your article, but briefly listing some applications of bittern may prime the reader better for what comes later in the article.

2. A Clear Structure

The subsections that you have in your article look great so far! It makes sense to give a brief history on bittern, and then leading into the uses and environmental impacts of bittern. The structure is definitely organized in a clear way and the flow of ideas make sense for this topic. Another potentially interesting subsection that you could look into would be the most common "types" of bittern, assuming that's a thing, and included some more photos to give the reader a better visual understanding of what it is you're describing.

3. Balanced Coverage

Based on the literature that you've cited so far, the distribution of information in the article seem pretty balanced. One thing I would recommend may be to elaborate more with a few sentences on each of the uses of bittern. For instance, you mention how it can be used in the production of potash. Maybe briefly describe in a sentence or two how this process works? Also, you say that bittern is used in tofu production (I love tofu, maybe add a photo of tofu?) - I would like to know what other products it's used in as a coagulant?

Under your "Environmental impact" section, you could maybe dive deeper into the effects it has on the environment. I see you say it has "no adverse effects," but does this mean that it has absolutely no effect at all? What kinds of organisms can or cannot tolerate it? These are just some questions that you could look into more.

Since your topic can most logically be understand through its different applications, I would recommend focusing more time on the "Uses" section. For example, my article deals with compatibility of trace elements, and it requires more equations and mathematical relationships between variables in order to be understood. But when talking about bittern, I think the reader would get the best understanding of this topic by listing out what bittern is used for, both by humans and in nature, and embedding photos and diagrams where necessary. But you have a great framework so far for the rest of your article!

4. Neutral Content

After reading your article, I did not get any sense of bias from the information presented. Everything was objective and informational, and there's useful Wiki links included on certain terms that the reader may not be aware of which is very helpful.

5. Reliable Sources

Looking through your references, the sources are published articles and do appear reliable. Everything written throughout your article is also cited to a credible source. Trying to find credible sources for a specific topic can be difficult, but you did a great job! If you have trouble finding sources for bittern, I would suggest looking to see what other terms may be used in reference to bittern. Other keywords that relate closely to your topic is a really helpful way to find more information!

Christinaxlu (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)