User:Dneal03/Canary hotspot/Jsamuel1616 Peer Review

The lead does a good job of having an introductory sentence that summarizes the definition for canary hotspot. It has a brief description for the formation section but I think I would add also a brief description for the recent activity information in the intro. I think it's concise and not overly detailed at all.

I think the content added is relevant to the topic and up to date especially with the sources being from year 2021 and 2022, it might be helpful to add any new information like from 2023 even if it's small activity and not any large eruptions to stay more recent and updated. I don't see it address Wikipedia's equity gaps where it's talking about historically underrepresented populations or topics.

The tone in the article is overall neutral with no opinions stated. Some small details I noticed is maybe rewording of "most widely accepted" in the first sentence and clarify if it's a theory instead or why its supported. Or maybe move the last sentence in the lead to after that sentence to show both opinions all together to seem less biased, but it's not a big detail and overall there's no bias. It doesn't seem to persuade the reader to one side over the other.

The fourth source links to a national geographic article which I'm not sure is a valid source so maybe you could link the science journal used in the national geographic article. The links do work and lead to the sources. They don't seem exactly quoted or cited from the science journals which is good. The sources are written by a variety of authors.

The content is well written and has a couple of very small grammar mistakes like needing a space before "The archipelago" and "floor of the ocean" could be shortned to ocean floor. I think the section size selected is good and each is concise and not too long.

I like the choice of images and also think the placement of them is good. I think I would just move the second image up a little just so it's more centered.

Overall, I think the article is very well written with only small changes needed and I think maybe I'd add more information or one more section just to gather more information on the topic but I think it looks great now.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)