User talk:Jegg247/Circumpolar deep water

Jessica's peer review".

The lead section is definitely easy to understand and offers a good concise description of the topic. Ir does not repeat information and it does not offer too many details. However, I do believe that the lead section could have provided a more detailed definition that could actually give an idea of what the rest of the article would like.

The structure is definitively clear, with each different topic having its own space with a lot of details. There is also a clear transition that helps the reader distinguish the different topics. Each topic that is distinguished in a different paragraph also has a clear reasoning explaining the reason of its existence and therefore the reader clearly understands how everything is connected with the main topic.

It is personally hard to understand the reasonable order of the topics due to the nature of the topic, but personally it makes sense that the properties of the deep water would be before the contributions of the deep water. The topic in each paragraph is easy to understand.

It is also important to mention that there is no evidence of subjective opinions, and it quite noticeable that the author is neutral concerning the topic without picking sides or expressing any kind of disapproval concerning the topic. It is also interesting that the author does not use any kind of persuading phrasing that could lead readers to support a specific side over another one.

Finally, I checked all citations and references and all sources were appropriate according to Wikipedia guidelines meaning that the sources were from journals and other reliable sources. I could probably suggest that more sources could cited in the physical properties section but the rest of the sections offer many great sources that are relevant and provide a wider understanding of the topic.Sources and references are presented in a balanced way.Oreo25 (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)