User:Aliu321/Shelly limestone/Bruceyang1998 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Aliu321
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Aliu321/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead has not been updated in the sandbox, so I am evaluating the lead from the article as-is. The list of fossilized organisms is too detailed and is better left in the body paragraphs. The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections because there are no sections in the original article. The lead includes information which is not elaborated later in a body paragraph.

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?

Content evaluation
The content added include two sections, "Formation" and "Applications." Both paragraphs are relevant and up-to-date, explaining the formation process and the use cases of shelly limestone. No missing or outlying content was observed.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral and narrative. No heavily biased claims were observed. The content integrates viewpoints from a variety of sources, and does not add attempt to persuade the reader in favor of a single source.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content only has 2 inline citations. The "Formation" section can especially benefit from additional inline citations. The sources are mostly current with three being from the last 15 years. They provide a good overview of the topic from a variety of disciplines such as geology, nuclear engineering, and paleontology. The links are all DOI based and all 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?

Organization evaluation
The content is generally well-written, but has a few grammatical and spelling errors. For example, "Shelly LImestone's have noticeable shell fragments..." should have been written as "Shelly limestones have noticeable shell fragments..." The sectioning is reflective of good organization, as readers can clearly distinguish the part that talks about the formation of shelly limestones from the part that talks about its uses.

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?

Images and media evaluation
Images were added to the original article, not the sandbox. The caption is descriptive but can be formatted to better adhere to the Wikipedia style guide (e.g. "Image of" can be removed, and "Suzac France" should be formatted as "Suzac, France" and potentially hyperlinked). The image was found on Wikimedia Commons and has a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and therefore adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The image was inserted to the right of the relevant text and therefore is visually appealing.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

Overall evaluation
The article is definitely more complete, and Wikipedia readers can now access information about the formation and applications of shelly limestone. Users may be interested in other aspects of shelly limestone, such as its physical properties and where it can be commonly found.