User talk:Dclark57/Anthrosol

Peer Review by Felicitas Schneider

1. The lead section is very informative and concise. I feel like I learned a lot just from reading the first sentence and got a very good idea of what the rest of the article might discuss. I did not know anything about anthrosols until reading this article, but now I feel ready to dive into the topic. There are plenty of links in the lead section to explain terms that I am not familiar with, so I found this very helpful in understanding the article better. There were clear cause-effect statements included (like the bold part about why anthrosols might be classified differently), which makes everything seem more believable than just stating simple facts. I did not notice that there was anything repetitive from the lead section to the rest of the article. Rather, the following sections expanded a little bit on what the lead section made me curious to learn about. Great work on this part!

2. In regards to the structure of the article, I was quite delighted to find everything in a logical, clear order. First, I am introduced to what anthrosols are, then I learn about what sets them apart, and at the end I am taught how they fit into the grand scheme of things/why we study them, namely to help identify archaeological sites. This order felt very natural to me, and I wonder if there is more that knowledge of these soils can be applied to. The article still seems a bit short to me, so I think an improvement that could be made to it is to perhaps look for other applications like the archaeology one. For example, after reading about the large impact that manure has in the creation of these soils, I was curious to learn if these soils are particularly useful for agriculture, or how they relate to it overall besides their formation. The image seems very relevant, and I like that it is simple and somewhat small so as not to distract with big diagrams or anything of the sort, which I feel is an issue I have with my own article's image that I added. Lastly, I found that there are a few places where there should be commas, but this is a minor editing issue and is not too noticeable.

3. After reading through the article a few more times, I found that in terms of balanced coverage, it does quite well. Everything hinted at in the lead section is discussed a bit further in the article body. The only improvement I could suggest on this point is similar to what I mentioned in part 2, that being looking for more applications to lengthen the article a little bit. It is nice to have a very quick read, but it also feels like there could be more details out in the literature, though I am certainly no expert on that front and perhaps this was all the information there was to be found. My biggest praise for this aspect of the article is that everything seems very relevant, and nothing is off-topic or misplaced in my opinion.

4. I believe that this draft of the article does an excellent job with displaying neutrality in every way. There are no statements making claims on behalf of other people, nothing that seems like it may try to present an opinionated viewpoint, or anything that would lead me to believe that this is not just a purely scientific literature summary. There is no statement in the article that I would judge as sounding “positive” or “negative”, so as to convince someone of something, but rather everything is stated in a matter-of-fact way.

5. In terms of the sourcing of the statements made in this article, I found that there are no repetitions of any source. Rather, each section seems to have its own main source or two. In addition, the sources attached to the bolded sections (which I assume are the sections that my peer added to the article) are well-sourced literature reviews summarizing the material of multiple studies. Overall, the citations aspect is well taken care of, just as the rest of the article draft.

It was a pleasure to read this draft; keep up the good work! FelicitasSchneider (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)