User talk:MJHeas/sandbox2
Peer Review
The article’s lead section contains unnecessary translations that could be confusing and distracting to readers. These Latin root translations should be included in a later section of the article, specifically under the history subheading. Despite the translations, the remaining portion of the leading section clearly identifies the topic and summarizes the article. The explanation of what morphotectonics do is well written and easy to understand. The second paragraph of the leading section seems too technical, with wordy descriptions that can be hard to interpret. Knowing that wikipedia is created for the common man, consider using more conventional sentence structure and vocabulary. For instance, instead of “breadth” you could use the phrase “wide range.”
The article has a clear structure, with three sections following the lead. However, I think the last section, titled “Morphotectonic Methods” should be named “References” instead. Naming it “Morphotectonic Methods” implies that the methods morphotectonics use to study the earth are going to be listed. It is incorrect to assume this because the information following the heading are sources. If the heading is going to remain as “Morphotectonic Methods” then I think you should include examples of methods morphotectonists use in the field.
The article is more focused on the relationship of morphotectonics to other fields. There are very few examples of morphotectonics in action. I think that it would be beneficial for the readers if real-world examples were used (add pictures of those specific examples for readers’ clarification). The history section of the article is quite sparse. I think you should consider adding the timeline of major morphotectonic discoveries to provide more context in this section.
No bias is presented in this article. All information is delivered in a professional, neutral tone. Upon first glance, the discussion of valleys under the “Tectonic Landforms” subheading appeared to be leaning towards a certain belief about their origination. After reading further, it was clear that there wasn’t a focus on one belief because evidence was presented for all beliefs.
There are currently eight sources cited for this article, with an even spread of books and reviews. The first two sources listed are definitions from a university dictionary website that seems reliable. The last sentence of the “Tectonic Landforms” section (“The customary view...tectonic activity”) does not have a citation. This information seems to be based on scientific discovery and should be supported by a document. Two of the sources are very dated, 20 and 50 years old, and should be replaced with more recent reviews that address up-to-date discoveries. Sources 3 and 7 are used more than the remaining sources. Only one sentence was cited from source 4. With source 4 being a textbook on morphotectonics, I think you could gather some valuable real-world examples from it. Mmonaghan9 (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)