User:Evanpmlester/Velocimetry/Cshingai 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? Evanpmlester
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Velocimetry

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No. For example, no footnotes to credible reliable sources.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No, the introductory sentence is not concise. The introductory sentence should be broken up.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, but more major sections should be added, such as a technique section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead doesn't mention "inexpensive industrial beads" to study the velocity of fluids.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Lead can be more concise, but depends on how many sections you have.

Lead evaluation
I think there is alot going on in the Lead considering there is only the Method section present so far. If you make the introductory sentence more concise and expand the sections in the article, then I think the Lead is good. In addition, it would be good to work on the structure to make sure it logically flows.

Also, it would be good to have footnotes to the references listed in your sandbox.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, lasted edited on March 21st, 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Content could be expanded more, but current content is all relevant.

Content evaluation
All of the content is relevant, but content can be expanded more.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, it appears to be neutral. I would just make sure the language consistently remains neutral throughout the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, you have more sources in your sandbox than what the article has.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Only one source seems to be current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
There was only one footnote in the article. Having in-text citations to a reliable source is one of the biggest priorities for this article. In addition, implementing the references in your sandbox to the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Content needs to be more concise and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There is a good amount of run-on sentences in the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No. Being broken down into sections would greatly improve the article.

Organization evaluation
I considering there is only one section. I think having more sections would make the article overall better. In addition, it would also make the Lead better.

Grammar could also be improved to make content more concise and clear.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No.

Images and media evaluation
I think having one main image in the Lead section would be good enough. However, you could also add images to each of the velocimetry techniques.

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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Not yet.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * All of the content is relevant.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * In-text citation
 * Concise and clear Lead
 * Adding more sections
 * More reliable references
 * Expanding content

Overall evaluation
There is a lot of potential to this article. All content of the content is relevant, it's just making those improvements listed above.