User talk:Shopkins31/sandbox

Jordan's Peer Review
After reading the lead for the Wikipedia article on vergence I have a clear understanding of vergence as a geological concept. The lead is reflective of the information found in the remainder of the article. The lead gives me details on what the definition of vergence is and how it segues into folds. You did a good job of developing your lead and defining vergence.

The article is organized and has a definitive structure. The article is currently divided into two sections: the definition of vergence and folds and geological uses of vergence. I like the order and structure of your article and how each section relates.

In general, your two sections are a little short though they are well written. I think that it would be a good idea to add information to these sections to more equally balance your article. Increasing the length of all the sections would be a good idea. Overall your article is well written and enjoyable to read.

The content of this vergence article seems to be neutral and unbiased. In the lead of the vergence article, you did a good job of being neutral and defining vergence. The references of our article we are supposed to be using peer-reviewed articles of textbooks. You only have two referenced textbooks but I see you plan to use three other references. I would suggest putting the references in. You have good references and did a good job of citing your information.

Overall I found your article enjoyable and informative. If you continue to add quality writing to your article like these first to sections it will be a wonderful Wikipedia article.

Jcollins302 (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)