User:Chibudom/Agricultural soil science/Denniskuipers Peer Review

General info
Chibudom

User:Chibudom/sandbox

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Very little new information is added, updating the lead to reflect these changes would be unnecessary.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, but the wording could use a look at.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, the lead does not describe the articles contents in any way.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The lead references Edaphology and Agronomy as separate terms that relate to the field of Agricultural Soil Sciences, but does not go into detail about the differences.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is lacking any mentions of what the article covers.

Lead evaluation
The lead should to be updated to include brief introductions for the existing information of the article. Any major topics added in the future could also be mentioned in a similar fashion.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The content added is relevant, but the wording makes it seem unnecessary.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

In an article about Soil Sciences under the Soil Preservation header mentioning "preserving Soil Organic Matter is very important to agriculturist" seems redundant

Content evaluation
The wording and placement of the added content could be changed. Any mention of Edaphology or Agronomy and their relation to the article could help the current lead portray the body a bit better.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?

Not quite enough information to tell.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article does not appear to hold any bias towards any position.


 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

The headers sizes are well proportioned to their importance in the subject.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No the content does not appear to be suggesting any one side is better.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does a good job keeping a professional tone and does not represent any bias towards any position.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

This is difficult to tell, the sources section is poorly formatted and not numbered properly. I would suggest looking through the sources and match the proper text with an in text citation.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The sources are relevant but more accurate sources exist, maybe some federal web pages have useful information.


 * Are the sources current?

No the sources make a lot of use of the Way Back Machine for articles that have since been removed for unknown reasons.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links send you to an archived version of the website to show the original intentions.

Sources and references evaluation
The reference sections needs to be worked on as it has poor formatting and only the first two are used in text.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The added content could be worded better, and indicate the acronyms in a better fashion. Instead of writing "use of conventional (CT)" maybe "use of conventional tilling (CT)" or leave them out altogether.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Again, the added content could be worded better. The acronyms do not seem to add anything to the information being portrayed by the text.

Organization evaluation
The wording of the content added in Chibudom's sandbox could be better. I suggest removing the acronyms altogether unless they can be fit into the text in a clear and concise way.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The article was missing information on no-till farming so I would say the content is an improvement to what it was originally.


 * How can the content added be improved?

The wording of the content can be improved by removing or working around the acronyms. The formatting of the no-till farming link displays incorrectly and should be fixed.

Overall evaluation
The article as a whole is well written and makes good use of space under the headers, but lacks an introduction in the lead. Furthermore the body of the article does not contain any in-text citations linking to the sources in the reference section making it difficult to find more information on the topic.