User talk:Tiffanyd4L/sandbox

Peer Review - Camille Giuliano
Everything in your article so far is neutral and unbiased! Everything seems to be properly cited. However, i don't believe you are required to cite other wikipedia pages you used. If anything, you should use the same source that page used for the fact you used. All the citation links work and seem relatively reliable, but there seems to be a lack in primary sources. Despite these few issues with the sources, the article itself looks great! Everything is well organized and goes through the fundamentals of the concept. Great work so far! Camillegiuliano (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
So far, I think that you have done a really good job at adding in relevant information to your topic, and the way that you have chosen to add a terminology section for key concepts is really effective. I understand that certain groundwater techniques and definitions can not come directly from scholar, peer-reviewed sources, and so with this in mind, your references look pretty good. In terms of changes, I would suggest maybe adding a couple of sentences about each of the methods for extraction (especially those that do not link to a Wikipedia page) to help the reader understand these processes. Also, I may have missed this, but why are some terms bolded and others not? If this is not done intentionally, just for aesthetic purposes, I think these should be consistent. Otherwise really great job! Kthay1197 (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)