User:Jamison7/Hydrothermal vent/Naomistow31 Peer Review

General info
Jamison7
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hydrothermal vent
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamison7/Hydrothermal_vent?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template:
 * 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.)

Lead: It appears as if the author has not made any edits to the Lead section of this article.

Content: The content added under the new hydrothermal plumes section is relevant to the topic of hydrothermal vents and is up to date with the most current information. Some questions that I had when reading this section were:

- What is the difference between a hydrothermal vent and hydrothermal plume?

- Why does the fluids coming out of the hydrothermal plume not disperse rapidly into the seawater?

- There was mention of warmer, less dense seawater and colder, more dense seawater; is the temperature of the water the reason for the density difference or is there a different reason?

Tone and Balance: The author remained neutral throughout their writing while providing additional information to the hydrothermal vents topic that is effective and clear. There is a nice balance of information in the couple of paragraphs with just enough emphasis on the important information without being too information heavy and causing a painful read.

Sources and References: The references appear to be in the correct format, and for the most part appear to be rather current sources with the exception of the Bruland paper which was written in 1991 and might be slightly outdated.

There seems to be a lack of references in the rest of the paper (not the author's fault), but could be a lacking area that the author could add to.

Organization: The added section is in an appropriate section of the article, following the physical description of hydrothermal vents and before the biology of hydrothermal vents. There seems to be no grammar or spelling issues in the added work, and it flows nicely.

The section about Identification seems to be unfinished, I will report back in a little bit to finish my peer review on the whole article.

Images and Media: The author added no images or media to the article.

Overall Impressions: Overall, I think you are doing very well and your writing has improved the efficiency of this article by adding to a previously lacking hole of information. I think that your section on ocean biogeochemistry is the strongest part of your draft, and you could always elaborate more on how each of the chemical components of these hydrothermal plumes are affecting the ecosystem around them. Nice job!