User talk:Benbouchard/sandbox

Peer review from Cole: I like the page layout – well structured with the background information/setting for context of the area followed by discussion of the Lewis Fault. You should include a brief introduction/overview of the page prior to your geography section that talks about the main points of the article (like an abstract).

Spelling and grammar needs some revision – some sentences are ended midway by periods (e.g. the first sentence of the geography section), don’t have capitals to start sentences, etc. Just needs a proofread to pick out lots of these.

The content of the article is fairly good. Some sections could perhaps be more balanced out – for example the geography section is very brief whereas the section describing the geologic structure is very lengthy. I feel there might be too much detail regarding the Rocky Mountain fold & thrust belt, considering it’s more for context of the area and doesn’t really involve information about the Lewis Thrust itself (which the article is about). In the section about the Lewis Thrust Sheet, it would help if you included a figure showing the structure of the fault zone – maybe something involving the cross-sectional structure of the Lewis fault, the duplexing involved or otherwise. You could also restructure the last couple sections to pair the movement along the thrust with the timing of its occurrence rather than having these separated (similar to what is in the paragraphs between "Lewis Thrust Sheet" and "Duplexes" but in more detail).

The area for most improvement would be the writing style – it’s very technical throughout and reads more like a journal article than a Wikipedia article. It would likely be hard to follow for anyone reading it without much knowledge of geology, and less technical language would help it read easier. It would also benefit from having more links to other pages – terms that aren’t general knowledge could be linked to so that they can be easily accessed by readers (e.g. time periods like Paleozoic, Mesozoic Eocene etc.; subduction, Pangea, lithosphere, unconformity, etc.). Doing so would allow you to keep many of the technical words rather than swapping them for ones more commonly used, as concepts/terms could just be explained by a visit to the linked page. Coalnoise (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In general, your additions to the Lewis overthrust wiki page add valuable and interesting content. The layout of the page is easy to follow and builds on itself nicely. With just a few additions and a little proofreading your page will be even better.

Good: The layout of your paper is well thought out and easy to follow. I especially like how you introduce the reader to increasingly complex ideas as the paper progresses. Each section builds on the next, making it straightforward to read. I like the “geography” section at the beginning of the page. I think adding more interesting facts etc. to it to set the scene for geological activity would be beneficial to your page.

Needs improvement: More photos and diagrams are always helpful. A simple cross sectional diagram (doesn’t have to be too detailed – maybe available on wiki commons?) depicting the Lewis Thrust system would add to the reader’s ability to visualize the system. A bit of extra proof-reading would make your paper a lot easier to read. Small fixes such as period and comma placement and general sentence structure could be improved quickly and without too much time. I think your page would benefit from adding more Wikilinks. Even wikilinks that are not geology-related can add to your overall paper. For example, adding links like “Alberta” or “Calgary” would allow people who are not familiar with the area in general to discover more about it than what your page presents. Also geological link additions such as “Proterozoic” etc. would be helpful for people who are not familiar with the subject (or just need a quick reminder!).

Haley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haywalsh (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)