User:Bwooddell/Concord Gabbro-Syenite Complex/Longka2 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Bwooddell

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bwooddell/sandbox
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Content and Tone

The organization is good, and the lead is detailed. The article is neutral, and the facts are supported. Everything in this article is relevant to the topic at hand. However, I feel that more information on the rock unit is needed to make this draft complete. The only major subsection of this article discusses modeling, and I think adding a subsection for location and geologic situation, formation history, and petrology of the unit would improve the article.

Sources

The sources are reliable, however more sources may be needed in order to be thorough. There are enough sources for Wikipedia to consider the article notable, though when adding more information to the article more sources may be needed. The sources are not too old, but not very current either. If possible, try finding more sources that were published in 2000 and onward.

Images

There are no images in this article yet. Consider adding a geologic map or photo of an outcrop.

Issues

There is an issue with the references section, as one of the sources is not included in the correct location. This has created two 'source 1s', making it difficult to determine where the information for facts cited at source 1 came from. The doi for source three does not work, but the other link works fine. I corrected a grammatical error in the first paragraph, changing apart to a part.

Overall Thoughts

Overall, the article is good so far. The organization (aside from the references section), tone, and facts are on point. However, what it needs most is more information. As you add to the article, consider:

What is the main minerology of the unit?

Which units border your unit?

Are there any trends in trace elements?

Are there any notable structures like faults within your unit?

How did this unit form? What events helped create it?

An image of an outcrop or geologic map of the unit would also greatly improve the article.

Try to find more sources published in 2000 and onward.

Fix the organization issue with the references section so that there are not two 'source 1s'