User:Johnmichael0705/Melt inclusion/Brynnams 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? (provide username) Johnmichael0705
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Johnmichael0705/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No: I will improve the lead section to include sentences that relate to the sections in the article, especially the new section that I created.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No: I will add in a sentence that mentions the sections including the new Interpretation section I added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * A little short: Should improve when I add in the above.

Lead evaluation
The two sentences the lead has are nice but could probably expand by a sentence or two. 'I will definitely expand this. I have not changed anything from the original lead in the article, but do see where I need to add references to the sections of the article.'

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Content evaluation
Overall content is good and explains melt inclusions well.

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
very well balanced and neutral

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of the new content is well sourced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good amount of sources added, but there are still many sentences without reference in the article. I will look to make sure I can find some sources for sentences with no citations.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Well organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Images and media evaluation
I think the image you added is nice and has a good caption. Just wondering if you are going to keep the image thats in the existing article and add the one you uploaded to commons as well. I think they would both fit in nicely. 'I will probably add mine in under a separate section. The image that is there is a pretty good one showing several melt inclusions very clearly.'

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Content added gives a more detailed and in-depth understanding to what melt inclusions are and how they are used.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More citations added to the article

Overall evaluation
Overall the article is really well written and feels complete. The only things that could be fixed are additional in text citations and possibly adding the other photos and adding more to the lead. 'Will definitely add more citations and try to add my picture of a melt inclusion that I can potentially link to my new vapor bubble article. Thanks for the suggestions!!'