User talk:Suhacker256/SaltDome

Kate Albertus's Peer Review
The article explains salt domes well. I had never heard of these before, so it was interesting to get to read and learn more about them. The description of what salt domes are was very descriptive, which I think is good, as not many people have heard of these before. I was impressed with the amount of information they had about the composition of salt domes. I also was interested in reading about commercial uses, and how salt domes provide natural resources for societies. Are there any disputes over these resources? If so, that would be an interesting topic to include in your article. If I had to suggest changes, I would suggest a picture or two to allow readers to visualize what they are reading. The description is very good about what salt domes are, but a couple of pictures might allow readers to see an example of a salt dome. Another suggestion would be to possibly break up the discovery mechanisms section into two different sections, one about discovery and one about the makeup/ what salt domes are. I think this would allow readers to follow the text better. I also would suggest maybe adding a section on what effect these salt domes have on their surrounding environment, if any. Overall, I think this article is well-written and informative, as well as interesting. After reviewing this article, I am motivated to increase my description of sea snot (my topic) to match the level of description of what a salt dome is.

The lead section is short and concise, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it is straight to the point and lacks confusing words, which is good, especially for people that have never heard of salt domes. I know diaspirism is wikilinked, but I would maybe provide a couple of words of clarification on what that is. Also, as stated above, I think the addition of an image would benefit the lead section, providing a picture to the description. From what I understand, under the topic sentence, the lead section should also include a small paragraph with a couple of sentences summarizing each of the different topic paragraphs, just to give readers an overview of the entire essay. The addition of this might be helpful to organize information and make scanning easier for readers.

Overall, I think the article's structure is good. As I stated above, I think the only change to the structure would be to split the discovery mechanisms section into two different sections to differentiate the two topics within it. This would provide further organization and limit the amount of large paragraphs that often scare readers away. If any additional information was added to the essay, I would just suggest to keep it organized with clear subheadings that make the article easy to navigate for readers.

I think that the article's balance of coverage is wide ranging, which provides readers with a full description of what salt domes are, why they exist, what they are used for, where they exists, and more. Instead of going into very descriptive details about only what topic of salt domes, such as the composition, this article gives a general overview of many different topics. This is good because the average person reading the article will likely need an overview of information, not a super specific fact that a common person won't understand. The article covers what salt domes are, the discovery mechanism of salt domes, the commercial uses of salt domes, and resources. Overall, this is a great balance of coverage; all sections have sufficient information.

The content in this article is neutral. After reading this article, there was no indication that the author was for salt domes, against salt domes, or anything in between. The article was written professionally, with scientific facts, that were cited of course. There was no opinion or bias at any point throughout the article. This is very good, as it gives reader an untainted overview of salt domes.

The article's reliable sources were good. However, after looking into all of the resources, the third citation would not work for me. Maybe it was just on my computer, but when I tried to view the "Mechanics of Active Salt Diaspirism" article, the web page said not found. If this is a global issue, and not just my computer, I would suggest trying to fix this or find another article or report that contributes where this one did. The same thing happened to me for the last source as well, the one from Schlumberger's Oilfield Glossary. Again, this might be a personal network error, but if not, this is definitely something to fix before your final publishing. Other than these, the rest of the articles looked good. The majority of them were scientific journals with lots of evidence and peer review. The sources provide ample evidence and support the content of this article. Kalbertus3 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)