User:Brynnams/Multi-component gas analyzer system/KRose4 Peer Review

Brynna: Responded

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? (provide username) Brynnams
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Brynnams/sandbox/MultiGAS

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead contains a mixture of the new additions and the old content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * 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? No, everything discussed in the lead is expanded on in the following sections. My only comment is that there are some volcanos listed that are not included in the Case Studies section and there are volcanos in the Case Studies section that are not in the lead. It might be good to update this so that what is in the lead is also discussed in the article.
 * Brynna: That is a good point. I was concerned about having a case studies section be overly long, since that is not necessarily the point of the article, but still interesting to list the various places its been used at. I will add a few sentences in the case studies section referencing those other volcanoes, but not necessarily expanding on them in depth. I added 2 sentences to the beginning of the case studies section referencing the volcanoes seen in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead provides a concise overview of the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, everything is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, most of the references are relatively recent.
 * 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, I wouldn't say that. It was originally a stub article though, and has now been expanded.

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? All of the references appear to be from peer-reviewed journals or books and there are plenty of references in the article, so yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The reference list appears to be very thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Hard to tell just by looking at a list of references, but 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? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I only noticed a couple of really minor things: 1) 2nd sentence of system mechanics section: missing an 'and', 2) 3rd sentence of volcano monitoring section: 'hydrothermal' should not be capitalized. Otherwise, it is great.
 * Brynna: Thanks! Fixed these.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, I like the images you added. They are helpful for understanding what the system might look like.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Yes, the article is definitely more complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I like the addition of the images and the case studies section which gives a good idea of how this system might be applied in the real world.
 * Brynna: Thanks!
 * How can the content added be improved? In addition to my above comments, I have one more suggestion. The caption on your last figure talks about the correlation between CO2 and H2S data, which is not specifically mentioned in your article. You mention some other ratios and how other gas species can be used, but it might be helpful to specifically mention those two gases and how they correlate since there is a figure about it.
 * Brynna: I agree, the statement is very vague and I will expand on it. I added that image just as an example of what data from a MG could look like, but I will clarify its purpose a little more in the caption and in the section about monitoring. I expanded on the caption to explain what is done with the data better. I added a sentence about CO2/H2s ratios to the volcano monitoring section to provide some more context for the image.

Overall evaluation
Overall, a very well done and informative article that fills in some of the gaps about this topic.