User talk:Shodges34/

Peer Review Periglacial Lake
The introductory sentence contains a single sentence with a definition of the term and a brief overview of what the article is about. Although the introduction is brief, I feel it is sufficient at providing an overview of the article. It might be beneficial to add an example to the summary, but it doesn't seem to be needed.

Your article is laid out in such a way that information is easy to find. You have informative headers with relevant information under each section. From there, it seems that based on your specific interest in the topic, you can find the relevant information.

As for the balance of coverage, it seems your article tends to focus on the broad topic of periglacial lakes (as it should.) While you point out examples of these lakes, you do not focus on a specific instance of the periglacial lakes. I personally think the idea of Biology in these lakes may be important to add to provide a fuller picture.

The article maintains a neutral tone throughout. The writer focused solely on the facts and when they provided summaries, they left their own voice and possible sources of bias out.

The second source is the only one that can be used by the user in order to find more information on the topic. While the user has three separate sources, it appears two are from the same book and author yet cited differently. It would be helpful to unify / possibly combine those. Additionally, linking: Sparks, B. W. (1972). Geomorphology would be helpful.

Bburnette6 (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)