User talk:Anonymoustrib/sandbox
Amit's Peer Review
1) The lead section is clear. I guess you could remove the etymology for concision in that section although I know most lead sections tend to have it. So not really much to say here.
2) The sections are ordered perfectly (in the same order as mentioned in the lead section). To follow this rule it could be of interest to tie in the section titled"Calthemites: secondary deposits not formed in caves" into the end of the lead section since its the only section header not referenced in the lead section.
3) In the chemical composition section the chemical formula to Calcium Carbonate is shown in parentheses (CaCO_3) however it is not provided for the other materials calcite, argonite, gypsum, mirabilite, or opal and they could maybe be a good add because of the specific section and how the information is relevant. Only really the first chunk of this section is about chemical composition and the rest talks about color which I guess could maybe be relevant but it really could be omitted or put into some other section as well.
This portion about "Many factors impact the formation of speleothems, including the rate and direction of water seepage, the amount of acid in the water, the temperature and humidity content of a cave, air currents, the above ground climate, the amount of annual rainfall and the density of the plant cover." could also be a section to expand upon with more details on how exactly these factors impact formation whether that is explicit models or equations or just more insight.
Types and categories section looks fine I can't really gut check this since I don't know all the names, so no productive feedback here outside of the overall aesthetic structure being really nice. As Climate Proxies is fine.
4) Hard to tell if there's anything that isn't neutral. Only thing was " For accurate dating, the speleothem must have been in a closed system without recrystallization." was unclear to me because I'm just not sure what closed system without recrystallization means so possibly expanding on that since its vague or providing some internal Wikipedia links to other articles.
5) First source is fine (cites definition) Second source is fine (cites fact) Third Source is fine Fourth source is fine Can't seem to find the information cited for fifth source, but possible I missed it. Source 6 is fine Source 7 --- Source 8 --- Source 9 --- Source 10 --- Source 11 --- Source 12 --- (in headline itself) Rest of sources fine...