User:BrookeBarlow/Brine pool/Antoniaisrael 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? BrookeBarlow
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BrookeBarlow/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, although "brine" could be defined. ("A brine pool (sometimes called an underwater or deepwater lake) is a volume of brine collected in a seafloor depression.")
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the difference between polar sea ice brines and deep sea brines not explained.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, and a good introduction to the subject.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The proposed edits located in BrookeBarlow's sandbox are very relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all sources are included in the bibliography.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there are a total of 7 sources in the bibliography.
 * Are the sources current? Yes: 1977, 1998, 2012, 2019, 2020.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are overall less women involved in oceanography.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, doi's work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is in the form of bullet points, but very easy to read and great ideas.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I would like to see where you are going to add these edits in the article. Are you going to create new sections? Add to the already existing sections?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * 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

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? By adding these edits, the article will be more complete. I especially think it's important to add the difference between brine pools in the deep sea vs brine pools under sea ice, and the dangers of living near a brine pool. I think it would be very interesting (but secondary) if you also add a whole new section about future possible uses, and add the Red Sea example.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It's all very relevant to the article, and very interesting. The fact that you want to add references is essential.
 * How can the content added be improved? Put your work into complete sentences and choose where to add the information. Other than that, everything's good.