User:EyeOfTheUniverse/Hybrid stochastic simulation/Pinkfrog22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

EyeOfTheUniverse


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Hybrid stochastic simulation


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hybrid stochastic simulation

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.)

Based on the edit history, it does not appear as if the user has contributed to this page yet. Additionally, there is no draft in the sandbox to be reviewed.

Overall, I would start by fixing the glaring grammatical and content errors. Then I would try to find sources about the topic and let the editing come naturally from the content your sources have.

Lead

The first sentence does not make grammatical sense: "simmulate part of Brownian trajectories avoiding to simulate the entire trajectories".

The lead also jumps right into what a trajectory is without defining it or hyperlinking it. A hyperlink to another wiki page could be good.

The completion of the lead section also seems to be missing information "This algorithm was developed in."

This lead section is in dire need of editing. Even just simply correcting the grammar and completing sentences would make a huge difference.

Content

The algorithm section is good, however, it is not cited nor is it writted in plain English. It appars to be copied from a textbook? Reviewing to non plagiarized, common words and adding citations will vastly improve this section.

The mapping section seems to have good information, but again is not cited and is extremely short.

I don't really see a need for the Remarks section. This could be combined with either of the two previous sections to make it easier to read. This section is also not written in plain English.

The last section has some citations, which is really great. I think that reviisitng the given sources and adding more information into that section would elevate it.

SourcesThere are only four sources for the entire article, so it could be good to find more sources in general.