User talk:Gerrad.caldwell/sandbox

Hello! This is a peer review of your article on the Gordia Ridge:

I think that you have good information in the article. You keep it very much short and on topic - very helpful to readers. I think that you could break it down into sections though. It would be helpful to have an introduction and then a section on the plate itself with subsections for each of the pieces of the plate (northern, central, and southern). Also, instead of using bold for your sections, I would suggest to use section titles. Your article would also benefit from a map. It is very hard to picture the plate without visual representation. I know finding the map is hard, but I seared on Wikimedia Commons for Juan de Fuca and found some good results that have the Gordia Plate on it, linked is one I really liked (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WestcoastSeaplates.svg). Other than that, I think your article is very well done! Jpez315 (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

peer review from Tao

First of all, the content to me is very straight forward to the point, and the information presented is easy to follow. The first picture has a lot of detailed information about the regional map, but you might want to get a verification on copyright of the picture if it is not of your own. I could see that you pull out the second picture off Geomapapp. I thought you could make some notes on the picture, to be more specifically, annotate where are the three segments are. That would be much easier for readers to follow. In the first paragraph, at the end of the sentence, readers might not know what Escanaba Trough is, so you might either explain it or "blue" it. I feel it would be great to add on some geological history, because all geological feature have some background history of when and how they formed. And the last problems is the citation, you know there is a "reuse"section when you click "cite" so that you dont have to repeat your citations. Disregard repeated citations, you should have a few more sources to support the article. Overall, the article is in a good shape. TaoCo (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)