User talk:Jayk456/Dead-ice

Dead-Ice Talk

On the talk page for dead ice, there is discussion if there needs to be a hyphen in the title. They bring up the fact there is no hyphen when writing about dead ice, however, when making reference to dead-ice moraine these is one. The author of the post argues that it is more grammatically correct to remove the hyphen. Additionally about the article itself, the use of academic words make it harder to understand what's going and leads me having to look up their meanings.

Jayk456 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Lead section:

Overall, I think this is really good!
Definition: I think a quick characterization of how glaciers move would give good context for why dead ice is different from the rest of the glacier.
The information on moraines is good, but I found the technical terms used to describe it hard to understand, even with the linked articles. A picture of the hummocky dead ice moraine would also help.
Ablation till is linked to glaciers, should be linked to ablation till
Ablation is a word I’m not familiar with, would probably be good to use a different one or explain the meaning
I’m not sure I understand the last sentence, and it doesn’t further characterize dead ice, so I would move this to another section.
Things to add: More basic characteristics for dead ice if any

Content:

Why does debris seeping into glacier ice stop it from moving?
I’m not familiar with quiescent phase, might want to change this or explain the meaning
The information on melting I think is good to include, but it used a lot of technical terms that made the section dense and hard to understand.

Tone and balance:

Tone is good, unbiased and neutral

Sources and References:

Sources look great
Most sentences are referenced and references are numerous and evenly distributed

Organization:

Content is concise and clear, but it is heavy in technical terms making it difficult to read in the areas mentioned above.
I would make melting its own section, or add more sections under characteristics.

Images:

The image is great, and I think if visual or physical characteristics of dead ice are given, the image would be even more effective. I have to assume the dead ice is the darker, raised section ice, and then I’m curious about why that is.

Main takeaway:

I think this article is good, and it taught me a lot about dead ice. I do think if the wording is relaxed from academic terms, it will be really easy to read and understand, and most of the suggestions I have for the article are related to context and readability. Jmarsh36 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]