User:Carmen.ram/Biological pump/Carmen.ram 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

 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Biological pump

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the intro sentence is very clear about what it is going to talk about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not directly give the sections, but it does kind of allude to them. The overview section more so gives these sections directly.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything that is said in the Lead is explained further later.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise while still being informative and including examples in a tasteful way.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content in the page is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Not really, many of the sources are from 10-20+ years ago which, when dealing with topics like carbon emissions/sequestering, is very out of date. This data changes as human production changes (increases), so a lot of these numbers are probably different now, and need to be added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Only the new numbers from the current state of the environment. Other than that, the content was very relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there are frequent citations in each section, showing very clearly where the information was being sourced from.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, although there could always be more.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not really, as said before, most of the sources are from 10-20+ years ago, which when talking about this topic, is very out of date, considering the environment is changing rapidly.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes! This is the first time I've had all the links I clicked actually lead to something. Very good.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is a little busy in the beginning, in the overview section, with a lot of parenthesis to show examples/"AKA", which gets jumbled. Maybe make those separate sentences or simplify the words to begin with. Or, if it isn't essential and is explained later, just don't even include that information. Later, however, it gets much more concise, and is very clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I could see, nothing glaring.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it is very easy to follow the thought process of this article. It breaks it down in a way that makes sense given the content of the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, but there could definitely more. I'd say one per section is usually a good baseline, if not more than that, but this one had less than that, so more images would help to enhance understanding of the biological pump.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, and if the information isn't in the caption, it is available in the text and obvious that they connect.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, there are no copyrighted pictures.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are all generally in the same part of the section they are for, which makes it easy to see what they're connected to.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions


 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Very clear and easy to read. A lot of good information that I feel is very thorough and well put. I learned some things.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More images to add to the aesthetic and enhance the ideas of the article. Maybe make some sentences more clear by getting rid of information in parenthesis and giving them their own sentences. Definitely update information to make the "present day" information about actual present day, and not the 90s or early 2000s.