User talk:SMotz3/sandbox

Emily's Peer Review
1. The lead section was easy to read. It did not contain any extraneous or redundant information. It clearly explained the topic of the article, however, could have added a reason for the article's importance. 2. The article was organized in a logical way. Because there were only a few sections, there was not really another way it could have been organized. I would consider changing the "discovery" section to "history" because it discusses more than just the discovery. 3. There is relatively even coverage, but the geology section could be expanded. The linked words are helpful, but it might be even better to define those terms within the article so the reader does not have to navigate through several pages to understand this one. 4. This article is neutral. There are no claims that seem to lean toward a certain bias. The author presents the facts, and nothing else. 5. Despite its brevity, the article uses several sources. It doesn't rely too heavily on one source. Additionally, each of its sources is reliable. Its reference section is clear and easy to use. All citation links work. Overall, very good! Anonymoustrib (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)