User:Delaneyhopen/Galapagos Triple Junction/DreadnoughtusDino 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? Delaneyhopen
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Delaneyhopen/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No lead provided.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No lead provided.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No lead provided.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No lead provided.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No lead provided.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Content was all relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It seemed to be up to date. Since there was no reference section, it was hard to find the publications.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content seemed to belong with the topic at hand. Tectonic History has not yet been filled it but it looks like it will be soon.

Content evaluation
Overall content was good. A few places where more information could be added but there might not be any information on those sections.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Content was neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it was all factual with no bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel like there could be more information about the formation of a triple junction, comments are found on the user talk page. Maybe a hyperlink to triple junction page could help with the understanding of the topic without going too off topic for the Galapagos.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It does not try to persuade the reader.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall great tone and balance. No bias displayed within the text.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All new content does have a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No sources on page.
 * Are the sources current? Maybe? I could not find the original sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are no links to check.

Sources and references evaluation
There is no list of references, but the text does have APA style citations so I know that the information does come from somewhere else. I am sure the sources are reliable.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? A few choppy sentences that could probably be combined to make an easier flow of reading but overall, it is decently written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors that I have noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Topics are arranged appropriately.

Organization evaluation
Some places sentence structure could be improved, but overall, well done.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Image is appropriate map of the triple junction being written about.
 * Are images well-captioned? Images are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There was no source for the image so that could be fixed.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images are appealing.

Images and media evaluation
The image could have a source, but otherwise it is well-captioned and appropriate for the page.

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No source list provided.
 * 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? Yes, the article looks like most wikipedia articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? It does not contain any outside links yet.

New Article Evaluation
The page has a great lay out.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? More content could be added in a few places, but there is a great understanding of the information because it is well written. Some links to outside pages could help with clarifying issues.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It explains the region well and the importance.
 * How can the content added be improved? I added the sentence improvements on the talk page for the user to read over.

Overall evaluation
What has been provided is a very interesting and has great information.