User talk:Sharrison49/sandbox
Peer Review
[edit]After taking a look at the lead section for Vertical Displacement, I feel as though it provided a sufficient amount of information to give me a general understanding of the topic without delving into too much detail. There is very limited information provided after the lead section, so there are practically no redundancies. However, I feel as though the concluding sentence discussing “faulting” sounds a bit out of place in the lead section, as it is not elaborated on any further. Moving it to another section of the article may be more beneficial for the readers’ understanding.
The structure of the article itself is fairly limited, as there is not much information written yet. However, the portion listed, “Studying Vertical Displacement” is a sensible section header that would definitely provide the reader with a better understanding of the topic. Additional sections that could be beneficial include the geological effects of vertical displacement on landscape, effects of vertical displacement on the crust and mantle, and behavior at plate boundaries.
Coverage on each area is difficult to determine as of right now, but I do believe there are certain topics that require more coverage than others. For example, the cause and driving force of vertical displacement should be given much attention, as this is essential for the readers to grasp. Areas addressing different perspectives in published literature should also be touched up on. As right now, there does not appear to be any bias that tries to convince the reader to accept one particular view.
The information provided in the article is almost entirely objective, and this leaves very little room for any persuasion by the author. There was not a single occurrence of the author pushing a more “superior” claim or attempting to convince the reader that one side of an argument is better than the other. The article was also neutral in that it didn’t overstate any positives or negatives. It solely focused on providing relevant and objective information.
The author made good use of sources to further support their article. The information provided in the lead section was referenced from a textbook published, and a visual aid was also provided from an outside source. Each of the three sources were only used once throughout the article providing a balanced perspective. As the author continues to add to the article however, they will definitely need to include more references to cover more specific topics fully. Nworku3 (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)