User:Eeclem/Exploration geophysics/Quercusfanatic Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Eeclem/Exploration geophysics


 * Their addition: Editing User:Eeclem/Exploration geophysics - Wikipedia
 * the actual article:
 * Exploration geophysics - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Exploration geophysics - Wikipedia
 * 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.)t

My peer did not add to the article called "Exploration Geophysics" except for he heading and paragraph: "Unexploded ordnance detection", so I will only be discussing this paragraph, not the entire article. This added information is very relevant to the article, and it is actually surprising it was not already included. My peer's addition is also up to date, as they source the history of UXOs (Unexploded ordnance detection). and how it is relevant and useful today in exploration geophysics. I could not seem to find anything missing in their addition, or anything that should not be included/added. Ad for equity, although my peer cites only the Crimean war as an example, he sources Hooper et al, which go into UXO issues from around the world. A recommendation I have for my peer to discuss examples of which nations employ this technology, and a couple examples of those that do not. This would give a more clear indication if this technology is strictly practiced by developed nations, or not. Apart from the Western slant, their addition seems neutral and non-biased. The content added by my peer is very well written, with zero spelling and grammar issues. The content is also very well organized, by starting the contribution off with a clear, concise definition of UXOs, followed by an explanation of its importance, ending with a reference. the second part immediately addresses history of OXOs with a reference, then discusses an academic source published by an accredited journal, as all of my peer's sources are. All of the facts, paraphrases and quotes are all correctly referenced. My peer then discusses an academic paper from experts in the field, that gives non-biased, technical solutions for issues related to OXUs. His paragraph is extremely well organized. As for overall suggestions, I would point out that in the original article has a heading called: "Geophysical Methods", and underneath it, various methods are cited, with full hyperlinks to full, in depth Wikipedia sites designed for each one. Therefore, my peer's contribution would be the only one of these listed that was described in paragraph form. This can still work, as long as the other examples under this heading are treated the same. To improve this work, my peer could have provided some examples of OXUs in developing nations, and provided an academic accompanying reference. In the paper that my peer did cite, by Hooper et al, contained this information, which could be gleaned and added.