User:Jomoeberhard/Brown-dwarf desert/Jfields7 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? Jomoeberhard
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Brown-dwarf desert

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Content was specifically added to the lead.
 * 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.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The article is short enough that the lead is basically the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is reasonably concise.

Lead evaluation
This article, although not labeled as such, is a stub. The lead more or less is the article. It's very concise and summarizes the topic well enough.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The new content expands on a statement which suggests that there could be brown dwarfs inside the brown-dwarf desert. The referenced paper is less than a year old, suggesting it is likely still relevant. The article itself is very short. Not being an expert in the field, it is difficult to say exactly what is missing, but it might be helpful for there to be some discussion on the particular observational methods used to identify brown dwarfs to alleviate concerns among the uninitiated that the brown dwarf desert is not just an artifact of certain observational techniques becoming impractical near a larger and more radiative star.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The new content does not appear particularly biased. Beyond that, the article itself is reasonably well-balanced, providing multiple ideas and theories for an unanswered question.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The new sources do support the statements made in the article. There are other places in the article that could use sources. Some of these are marked with "citation needed" already. For the new content added to the end of the first paragraph, it may be helpful to include some additional sources

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
There is not a lot of content in this article, so it doesn't need much organization. It might be helpful to turn the second paragraph into a section labeled 'possible causes' or 'possible origins.'

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


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

Images and media evaluation
No new media was added. The only image in the article would really benefit from a citation in its caption. The image itself is not visually distracting or unappealing, but it is not particularly informative.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The addition of more citations was particularly helpful. Not a lot of new content was added, but it did help round out one of the more important ideas and possibly suggest an avenue for further article improvements. By suggesting that brown dwarfs can exist inside the desert in a multiple-star system, a reader might expect to see some discussion on why this might be the case based on existing research, which could lead to a more complete section on possible causes for the brown-dwarf desert.