User talk:Aminatangom/sandbox

Ryann peer review

Lead section

The lead section concisely and clearly defines the topic of interest. I did not know what Biogenuous Ooze was prior to reading this article, and the lead section was a great introduction. It could be made more comprehensive by mentioning the two kinds of sediment. In addition, the apostrophe after the word “organism” should be written as “organisms’” rather than “organism’s.” The lead section is neutral and is not redundant. Consider wikilinking “seafloor” (redirecting to “Seabed”).

Structure and balance

In general, I felt that this first draft is well-organized. As someone without prior knowledge of this topic, I felt that the organization helped me learn about biogenous ooze. However, I did feel that there were a couple of ways in which the organization could be improved. I did feel as though the composition section was redundant. I would consider moving the first paragraph into the introductory section, or creating a new section titled “Formation” for this paragraph and elaborating a little. The second paragraph could be moved to the “Types of biogenous sediments” section, where it might make a good introductory paragraph. Titles and section headers in Wikipedia are capitalized sentence-style, so the only the word “Types” should be capitalized in this section. Also consider changing the title of the section to “Types of biogenous ooze” for greater clarity. Consider moving the “Distribution” section below the “Types of biogenous ooze” it might provide a more natural flow of information. A few sentences from the “Types of biogenous sediments” section might be more appropriately placed in the “Distribution” section.

The section “Determination of climate history” is appropriately placed; however, only the first word in its title should be capitalized.

The figures are appropriate for the article, and are well-selected. They really helped with my understanding of the topic. However, I noticed that the figures lacked detailed captions. Consider adding captions to the figures, to provide context and to help the reader better understand them. Wikiedits1996 (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article was neutral; it was apparent that no viewpoints were favored, and that no erroneous assertions were made. The article did a good job of providing an unbiased description of the topic at hand. No phrases in the article suggest any kind of viewpoint or opinion.

Sources

The article does provide reliable sources that meet Wikipedia’s guidelines; no sources that do not meet the guidelines are cited. However, citations 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 11 are all duplicates of each other as per the ISBN, except that source 1 provides a contributor name. When I search for the ISBN, I am taken to an Elsevier Reference Collection, which includes thousands of sources. Citing this Reference Collection without being more specific does not provide sufficient clarity. Including the specific article/chapter for each citation is necessary to provide this clarity. Because only a reference collection was cited, relevance could not be determined for these citations. For source 12, while this source does seem relevant to the topic at hand, consider identifying the specific topic in the encyclopedia.

It was unclear at times what citation a sentence is supposed to have belonged to. Consider citing the sentences at the end of each paragraph, just so that it is clear where each sentence comes from. This is especially important at the end of each section.

The title should be capitalized for the second source (“biogenic ooze”). Wikiedits1996 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)