User talk:Ywangg/Extensional fault

Latest comment: 2 years ago by ProudPlantParent in topic ProudPlantParent's Peer Review

ProudPlantParent's Peer Review

edit

The lead section of this article is strong and clear. It delivers a summary of the article content in a concise and comprehensible manner. The second paragraph of the lead section goes into the details of only some of the topics; this section would feel more balanced if it included specifics on none or all of the topics.

One of the main edits this person has made to their article is in the structure. The original contained one section with a cluster of information on multiple topics, and this student has reorganized the content. The structure of their article draft is much smoother and more easily read. It contains headers for different subsections that allow the reader to find information on specific topics quickly. The changes to the article's structure are a positive change.

This draft of the article is somewhat balanced in its coverage of different topics. However, there is a lot more information under the heading "Fault Interaction" than under "Fault in Sedimentary Basins." The article could offer more balanced coverage if faults in sedimentary basins were described with a similar level of detail as the fault interactions.

This article is successful at maintaining a neutral point of view. I did not detect any apparent biases or personal opinions presented in this person's article. The draft offers an evidence-based scientific description of the topic and does not stray from the goal of educating the audience.

The sources cited in the draft of this article mostly appear to be reliable and cited properly. Two additional sources have been added by this student to the original citation list. The two added sources contain doi's and are strong peer reviewed sources. One of the sources cited in the original article is taken from nps.gov, which is less likely to be a peer reviewed or research-focused reference. I might suggest finding an alternative for this source because it lowers the reliability of the citations. The other citations appear strong. ProudPlantParent (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply