User talk:SophieL3/sandbox

Article Review
The flow of the introduction is good, containing good information about what Siberian traps are however, I do not understand how sources 7 and 8 relate to the cited material, where as all of it can be found within source 2 MCarrier18 (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The formation section is well written and insightful providing a neutral standpoint. I was unable to view source 9 which is from a text book. While source 10 verified its cited material, however is missing citations for the last 2 points MCarrier18 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Article Review - Jaimee
The grammar of the article in the lead section was significantly better than the original! Great job fixing it. As I'm sure you know, there could be more citation added to each section and to the parts that have already been tagged as "citation needed." According to the checklist, the edited version of this article was relevant. The article was neutral. There was not anything that appeared or seemed biased towards a particular position. Nothing was overrepresented or underrepresented as it is a rough draft and there was not that much information yet to give off a certain perspective. As mentioned above, there needs to be citations added. The citations that are presented are helpful and seem reliable. Good job overall! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:E31F:FFBD:59AC:D191:5B8B:8716 (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)