User:Eeclem/Exploration geophysics/BrettKuzmicz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Eeclem


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

Content
The content is relevant and up to date. It covers this subtopic of Exploration very well with relevant examples, and does not contain any content which doesn't belong.

Tone and Balance
The content added is balanced, and does not have any bias toward any position. No viewpoints are over or underrepresented. There is no attempt for the writer to persuade the reader of anything.

Sources and References
Every statement which needs a source has a citation. The citations are properly used for the information they represent. The sources are up to date. A diverse set of separate sources were used, two authors and one government website. These are reputable sources, and the links provided work properly. No additional sources need to be suggested, as any more contributions to this subtopic would make it longer than it should be - it's perfectly long now.

Organization
The writing is clear, concise and easy to read. The sentences are well organized, and the wiriting is divided nicely into paragraphs. There are no grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media
There are no images and media, but this subtopic of Exploration geophysics does not require any images or media.

Overall, this is well written, contains relevant quality content which will improve the article. The strengths of this article are the clear concise writing, and the historical example. This article could be improved by linking some of the words such as "Crimean War" to their wikipedia articles so the reader can easily learn about the context of the content.