User talk:Stephenonash/sandbox

Celeste's Peer Review
The first sentence clearly summarizes the topic of the article. The first two sentences seem to create an overview of the two main usages for fault traces, which does a good job summarizing what will be in the rest of the article. With the knowledge I currently have, I’m not really sure what the third sentence means. I’m not sure what a slip surface is or how it protrudes from a fault core. Maybe relate this more to what happens during an earthquake, because “earthquake” links to another article that will give more information on this topic. The rest of the article only relates to the first sentence of the introduction, but not really to the rest. Possibly consider expanding on the first two sentences of the introduction paragraph rather than adding new information in that section.

There are no section dividers in the draft so it is difficult to see a logical flow or the organization of the article. There are also only two possible sections currently so aside from section dividers it is difficult to comment on the structure. I think it would make sense to have a section on how fault traces are created on the Earth, with subsections on this topic and another section on the mapping aspect of fault traces. The first section is clearly the introduction, but I am not positive if the second paragraph is meant to be part of the introduction or a new section.

Each section’s length is not equal to its importance in the article subject. This is mostly due to the shortness of the draft. There needs to be a balance of information on the creation of a fault trace, mapping of traces, etc. Currently there is just a small section on where the traces occur/what the different forms are. All content is on topic. There are only two sources cited so it is unlikely all perspectives are represented. It could possibly expand on the perspective that fault traces are just lines on the Earth (where this perspective came from, why it is not commonly accepted anymore?).

The author obviously believes fault traces are due to earthquakes and not just random lines on the Earth. The sentence about how they were once believed to be lines in the Earth could be reworded to sound less like it is invalidating a differing perspective. With that being said, I think the author does a good job of staying neutral and unbiased. The two-source listed in the draft seem to be reliable sources. Both articles are from a reputable journal. The first is from Marine and Petroleum Geology, which is a reputable and peer reviewed journal. The second is from Geological Society, London, Special Publications which is also a reputable, peer reviewed, source. However, assuming the author is putting the citation after the work has been used, there is no source for the last sentence in the first paragraph.

Some other general comments I had while reading the article were I'm not really sure what "clearly titled" means, maybe you could take that out or reword it. "Comprising" needs to be changed to "comprised of". I think it would be cool if you could include a map showing the cartology aspects of fault traces. Rather than awkward phrasing to avoid using the word "this" consider just repeating the work "fault traces" (I know this is something I am guilty of too). Overall, this has some good information about fault traces, but needs a little more work and information to be added. Aannie199 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)