User talk:Tsilas3/sandbox

Lead Section
The sentence contains a valid definition that briefly defines the term "dissolved load." This clearly reflects the most important piece of information and should be kept. It would be advisable to expand the length of this section in later drafts, adding to the summary in line with your subsections' content. Aim to eventually have 3 or more sentences here.

Structure
At the moment, the draft is divided into only a lead section and a body section. To introduce further clarity into your article, it would be best to divide it based on the major themes discussed. I would consider moving part of the significance discussion into the lead section. Also, another subsection that might be relevant enough to add is measurement techniques for dissolved load.

Balance of Coverage
The wording appears to be fairly neutral, and I did not notice anything that was coming across as an opinionated viewpoint. While the topic of denudation was covered in appropriate depth, consider elaborating on the other topics like surface dynamics and dissolved load's relation to climate. This would help create more discrete units of information that can serve as different subsections and improve the balance of coverage.

Neutral Content
In the first sentence from the body, the phrase "scientists with" seemed a bit limiting in scope considering that the metric is universally applicable, even to non-scientists. Consider omitting or rewording this phrase. Other than that, the article presented the content in a relatively neutral point-of-view and avoided unsubstantiated claims.

Reliable Sources
The references used were good peer-reviewed articles coming from reliable academic journals. That being said, the draft currently refers to only two sources. Having a more diverse array of sources would go a long way in helping substantiate your content and would also provide more useful information to draw from.

--Rsoni22 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)