User:Johnmichael0705/Melt inclusion/KRose4 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, the lead is still the same as in the original article. This will be addressed and improved to include a sentence in regards to the sections including the new section 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? It introduces what a melt inclusion is but doesn't really state what the article will cover. This should be improved when I add a description for the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead could be updated to have a bit more detail about what is going to be discussed in the rest of the article. I am planning on adding in some citations as well as expand the lead to mention the sections in the article to make it more cohesive.

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? Not really. However, it does provide additional information on a very short original article.

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? For the most part, the new content is referenced. There are a couple sentences at the end of the interpretation section about fumaroles that don't appear to have a reference. Also, I don't know if you where planning on editing any of the old content, but if so, it is missing a lot of references. I am going to find more sources for the sentences that do not have citations for the old article, especially in the lead.  I will make sure the information I add has citations and see if I can find some for the existing statements in the article.
 * 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? Hard to tell just from looking at a list of references, but I'd say yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is clear and adds necessary information about the topic
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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? I might suggest having the image on the left, instead of the right. That might just be personal preference on my part, but it would get rid of all that white space. However, I can understand leaving it there if the image has to be associated with that section. I will move it around and see how it looks.

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it has.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The addition of the interpretation section was very helpful for giving people an idea of how melt inclusions might be used in scientific research.
 * How can the content added be improved? The addition of some more references (see above) and bulking up the lead section would make this article more complete.

Overall evaluation
Overall, these where great additions to the melt inclusions article and will be very helpful for people in understanding this topic. 'I will definitely be expanding the lead section to mention the sections of the article and will find more citations for statements that do not have one currently. Thanks for the suggestions!!'