User:Captainmarc15/Energy technology/Funmi.Ajani 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? (provide username) Captainmarc15
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Captainmarc15/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
There was no lead present in this draft. However the author did provide a quick sentence about their topic within the 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content provided in the draft is relevant to the topic; geothermal. The content is up-to-date and there is not add unnecessary information. The topic does relate to the Wikipedia equity gaps, however this topic does not explicitly focus on 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the draft is neutral and informative. The information provided is neither over presented or underrepresented since they provided a lot of information and it just focused on geothermal. The author does not display and biases or an attempt to persuade the reader since they use simple language and allows the reader to have a clear understanding of what geothermal is.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content in the draft was provided with reliable and current source that helped the author provided a thorough draft about geothermal. The source are thorough and they provide a lot of information that reflects on the topic. The sources used are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors since encyclopedias and academic websites were used. The source did not address historically marginalized individuals, as well. Lastly, the source used worked.

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 organization of this topic was clear, concise and cohesive. There was little to no grammatical error specifically the last sentence. Overall, the paragraph was well organized and easy to understand. However, there is a lot of citations.

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
In this draft there aren't any images or media provided.

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 content in this section has improved since the original article has only a sentence. The strengths in this article is that it is a neutral voice with more information provided for the reader. However, ways to improve this content is add more information since it seems like there is more citation that the authors words.