User:AlyssaML/Eddy diffusion/Tmaraghe Peer Review

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

My chosen topic of study is eddy diffusion in the environment.

The size of eddies decreases as kinetic energy is lost, until it reaches a small enough size for viscosity to control, resulting in kinetic energy dissipating into heat. The concept of turbulence or turbulent flow causes eddy diffusion to occur. The theory eddy diffusion was developed by Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor. The concept of turbulence or turbulent flow causes eddy diffusion to occur. T'''he theory eddy diffusion was developed by Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor. (redundant)''' The eddy diffusion coefficient is used in the diffusion equation, to describe the dispersion or mixing of solutes in fluid or atmospheric systems. In natural systems, the vertical component of eddy diffusion, is an important parameter for modeling and describing atmospheric variations due to turbulence and convection.This process of eddy diffusion is the foundation for the structure of the atmospheric boundary layer. In rivers, the size of the eddies cause fluctuations in the river's velocity. The size of eddies in rivers are usually limited by the depth of the river, due to a rivers depth is usually much smaller than it's width (awkward phrasing).

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) - AlyssaML/Eddy diffusion
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: - User:AlyssaML/Eddy diffusion

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Lead paragraph has been updated with additional information
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - main article yes, however you might consider a stronger lead sentence that leads into your discussion a little more. I need to do that on mine I realize, as I can of jump into a bunch of crap quickly.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - No, the article on has a lead section, maybe consider adding a section for relevant equations or an applications section or a background section etc.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Lead could be a little more concise wording wise. There is some redundancy I bolded, and some awkward phrasing that just needs to be proofread.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Lead could be a little more concise wording wise. There is some redundancy I bolded, and some awkward phrasing that just needs to be proofread.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Lead could be a little more concise wording wise. There is some redundancy I bolded, and some awkward phrasing that just needs to be proofread.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Lead could be a little more concise wording wise. There is some redundancy I bolded, and some awkward phrasing that just needs to be proofread.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, additional information and time is given to the theory discussion and background information that is not present in the main article. Although, if you wanted you could create a separate theory section and put this under there to separate it from the lead paragraph in the main article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, Alyssa used a number of articles that were published in roughly the past decade as well as some older ones.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The lead is condensed here a bit, which is good for concision. I would consider adding anther section so eventually a 'contents' table of contents can be used to navigate to new sections.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The lead is condensed here a bit, which is good for concision. I would consider adding anther section so eventually a 'contents' table of contents can be used to navigate to new sections.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The lead is condensed here a bit, which is good for concision. I would consider adding anther section so eventually a 'contents' table of contents can be used to navigate to new sections.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, factual and appropriately cited.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No, theory and background knowledge presented
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Not necessarily, but with limited breadth of information in general it is kind of hard to tell.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No, it is neutrally presented
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Not necessarily, but with limited breadth of information in general it is kind of hard to tell.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No, it is neutrally presented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No, it is neutrally presented

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes, publications cited are academic and generally from books if not academic papers.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - It is hard to tell, as a number of sources that look very legitimate are used but little information has been synthesized in general in the original document
 * Are the sources current? -Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? -Yes
 * Are the sources current? -Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? -Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? -Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - With a proofread yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few - see paragraph above
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - I feel like you could break this paragraph into a few sections that would be a lot easier to follow if I were a laymen (which I am) and I went to the wiki site, it is just easier to read technical information for me when there is spacing in the writing and not just text.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - I feel like you could break this paragraph into a few sections that would be a lot easier to follow if I were a laymen (which I am) and I went to the wiki site, it is just easier to read technical information for me when there is spacing in the writing and not just text.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - I feel like you could break this paragraph into a few sections that would be a lot easier to follow if I were a laymen (which I am) and I went to the wiki site, it is just easier to read technical information for me when there is spacing in the writing and not just text.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - Not yet, but I think adding something would be a good idea. I tried to add an image to mine and wikipedia wouldnt let me... Id really like to as I think mine needs it too so if you figure it out let me know! Ill give it another shot on my own too.
 * Are images well-captioned? - N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? -Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? - The list of sources is very varied and looks good
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? - There is a general lack of sections in the original article, I would maybe consider creating one and not even making really new content, just breaking what you already have up into a theory section or an application section
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discover-able? The article does link to other articles, so does that mean they link back to this one? Generally I am not sure how this works..
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? - There is a general lack of sections in the original article, I would maybe consider creating one and not even making really new content, just breaking what you already have up into a theory section or an application section
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discover-able? The article does link to other articles, so does that mean they link back to this one? Generally I am not sure how this works..
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discover-able? The article does link to other articles, so does that mean they link back to this one? Generally I am not sure how this works..

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Good content but it would help me to read it at least if it were broken up a bit.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - Good outline of the articles points
 * How can the content added be improved? - Adding a section header
 * How can the content added be improved? - Adding a section header
 * How can the content added be improved? - Adding a section header