User:Jiinjung/Magnetic Field of Mars/Cpnoll Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Jiinjung's first draft of their article on Mars' magnetic field.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Jiinjung/Magnetic Field of Mars


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

N/A

1) Were the basic sections adequate? If not, what is missing?
Yes! The basic sections were adequate and covered the material appropriately.

2) Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text?
Yes! Subheadings were used effectively to compartmentalize the article.

3) Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow?
Yes! I currently can't think of a better way to organize your article.

4) Did the writer adequately summarize and discuss the topic? Explain.
Yes, you did. However, I have two general suggestions:


 * 1) Wikipedia suggests that the lead section has a comprehensive summary of the material to follow. Your current lead doesn't currently have a strong summary section, which is why I marked it as "Poor" on the rubric above (see the explanation on the ReviewInstructions2022 rubric). I believe your current lead section serves its purpose, but it may be worthwhile to more explicitly summarize your main points in the lead section.
 * 2) Throughout your article, phrases such as "shock events" and "dike intrusions" go without a link to another Wikipedia article and go without an explanation. I would suggest you read through your article again and explain scientific terms by linking to other Wikipedia articles like this or explicitly detailing the meaning of scientific phrases that lack a Wikipedia article. That way, your article will be more accessible to those who are less knowledgeable in this field.

5) Did the writer comprehensively cover appropriate materials available from the standard sources? If no, what's missing?
Yes! The sources references are reputable and you seem to cover all the bases relating to this topic.

6) Did the writer cite sources adequately and appropriately? Note any incorrect formatting.
Yep! No issues to report.

7) Were all the citations in the text listed in the References section? Note any discrepancies.
Yep! No issues to report.

8) Were there any grammatical or spelling problems?
There were a few grammatical and spelling mistakes here and there. I'll focus on this issue more significantly in the next round of peer review, but it wouldn't hurt if you looked over your article again to spot and fix the few grammatical and spelling errors present.

9) Was the writer's writing style clear? Were the paragraphs and sentences cohesive?
Yes! No noticeable issues to report.