User talk:Jenniferlight17
| This user is a student editor in Georgia_Institute_of_Technology/Introduction_to_Environmental_Sciences_(Spring_2021) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Jenniferlight17, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Peer Review by Jennifer Light
[edit]Your introduction sounds great! You gave a clear and descriptive definition and only gave the basic information. I also like the addition of the origin of the word. The lead gives a good introduction to the topic and isn't overly detailed or specific.
The first section is very thorough and well-organized. You did a good job describing the current debate between macrostructural and mesostructural without coming across as biased toward either viewpoint.
The formatting of the "types" section seems a bit off. Maybe un-bold "Calcified Microbe Thrombolites" and "Coarse Agglutinated Thrombolites" so that they look like subsections of the "types" category instead of their own sections. I like how you separated your information into two types, though. It makes the article simple and easy to understand.
There is one type in the section titled "Differences from Stromatolites," where you wrote "stromatolites has" instead of "have."
I really like the way you structured your article and broke it into small and specific sections. I think it is organized well and easy to read. I think the order of your sections makes sense, and I wouldn't change it.
You did a good job balancing coverage and not spending too much time on any irrelevant details. All the information is relevant and on-topic. You also seem to have done a good job representing multiple different viewpoints in a neutral way. There is no clear perspective or agenda being told, which is good.
The sources that you cited appear to be reliable and academic, and you did a good job listing a citation every time a new point is introduced.
One thing I would advise you to do it elaborate on the "Ancient Fossil Record" section. It is unclear how grounded or generally accepted the statement is about thrombolite contributing to the increase in oxygen in the early Earth's atmosphere. I think it would be good to describe this theory more in detail, and possibly list any contradictory theories that are present. Jenniferlight17 (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)