User talk:Dclark57/Canfield Ocean

Peer Review

The lead is very clear, concise, and simple and covers the information in the article. I like that you took out some of the extra information that didn't make sense in the original article.

The added sections do a good job of explaining the aspects of the model and provide a lot of information that the original article was lacking.

The tone of the article is neutral, and while it currently leans in favor of the model being fact, adding to the "Scientific Dispute" section will help with the balance of viewpoints.

The source links work, and the content seems to accurately reflect the sources. Most of the sources are older (20+ years), so it would be good to add some newer sources as well.

Content is well-written and well-organized.

The image is a good visualization and is useful to understanding the mechanisms involved in the model.

Overall, the added sections added a lot of information that was missing from the original article and made it much easier to understand the topic. I think adding the disputes or inadequacies of the model will help strengthen the article. In the lead, it could be helpful to include the dates of the Boring Billion and GOE (in Ga), since later in the article you refer to 1.8 Ga, which would be the start of the Boring Billion. Additionally, since the image includes chemical equations for the mechanisms, you could include those in your "Formation" section.

Great job!

Sdenviogeo (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)