User talk:Trodriguez30/sandbox

Paige's Peer Review
Lead Section The lead paragraph highlights the important aspects of the Wilson Cycle. I would link some of the vocabulary words like "divergence" and "subduction" to other Wikipedia articles so that a reader who is not familiar with the concepts can quickly go over them. I like how you clearly stated the steps of the Wilson Cycle because it gives the reader a very good overview of the concept. I would perhaps add one more sentence at the end stating how the Wilson Cycle is used in geological sciences i.e. is it still being investigated, how does it aid research that is ongoing? It would allow the reader to understand how the cycle is applicable and relevant.

Structure I would not title your next section as "background." It needs to be further subdivided into categories such as "Historic Discoveries" and then explain who discovered the process and when and with what equipment (in this case, seismic data). I do not think it is necessary to explain the lithosphere in great detail; since "lithosphere" and "asthenosphere" are linked already, you don't need to explain the concepts. In a new section titled something like "Wilson Cycle Process" or "Wilson Cycle Stages" I would further divide this section into the 6 concepts you discussed in the lead and (if possible) add a picture or diagram for each stage. By further dividing this section it gives a clear image of all of the stages in the Wilson Cycle. I would structure this article as so: "Lead Section", "History of the Wilson Cycle" (include who or what group discovered it; what year; contributing scientists; how was it discovered; was there any push back from the science community), "The Wilson Cycle Stages" (include the results of the cycle in a brief 1-2 sentence explanation, then break down each stage and give then their own heading and describe the stage alongside a diagram for visual aid).

Balance In terms of balance, you spend a good bit of your article talking about concepts that are useful to understand the Wilson Cycle, however, if you link the vocabulary the reader can find the information readily available. I recommend focusing more attention and detail on describing the stages of the Wilson Cycle. The article would benefit from another section such as the history of the Wilson Cycle in order to reflect how pivotal/groundbreaking/important the concept is. I would also put another section explaining how the concept is relevant in the geological sciences. That way you are giving representation to the history of the concept, what the concept actually is, and how it is applicable/ relevant.

Neutrality The tone of your article is neutral. It does not try to persuade the reader to form a certain viewpoint.

Refrences The article features two sources. I think it would be beneficial to cite more than two. Even though both the references are peer-reviewed journals (which are great sources), using more sources to elaborate on the concept would fully develop the explanation. For example, another source would be beneficial in describing the history of the discovery. In the lead section, only source 1 is cited and in the rest of the article, source 2 is cited. It would be best to include concepts from your references throughout your article because source 1 may explain the concept in a different way and it is up to the author of the Wilson Cycle article to write the general understanding of the concept instead of one reference author's understanding.

Pwise8 (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)