User:KRose4/Altiplano-Puna Magma Body/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) KRose4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:KRose4/sandbox

Lead

 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * Yes, gives good short overview of APMB information


 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * It reflects the information that is in the article well, but maybe not full extent of topic.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * The lead comments on all parts of the article.

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The first sentence could possibly better define what the APMB is along with where it is. I edited the first sentence to hopefully better define the APMB and its location
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Lead evaluation
In the lead there seems to be a missing train of thought at the end. Right now it reads like you are saying that the APMB in its entirety is rising ~10mm/yr, which is not the case. Some more information about the magma body itself, i.e. composition could be useful to include. Overall, well written and all sentences have generous citations. '''You are correct. I hadn't realized that the sentences could be interpreted that way. I've edited it to make it more clear. I also added in a sentence about the composition.'''

Content

 * are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * Yes, sections are well organized.


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
 * Section lengths are okay, nothing unnecessary or off-topic.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * Good representation of published opinions
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * No
 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * Maybe slight favoritism towards the rising diapir idea, solely based on the length of description. I've removed a couple of sentences that I think may have been unnecessary/too much detail.
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * no
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * no
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
 * no
 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * yes, reliable sources only
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * No, good balance
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately
 * No everything is well cited

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Content seems really focused on Uturuncu deformation and not necessarily the APMB itself. I have paired down that section slightly by removing unnecessary sentences
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * More info on APMB itself and what may be occurring in other parts of it. I added in another section that discussed the composition of the APMB
 * 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
I think it would be good to specify that the APMB in whole is not uplifting its just a specific area. I fixed that. It may also flow better if you put the two ideas of uplift next to each other, they are spaced out with a lot of different information in-between them. '''I've been considering this and have decided to leave the order as it is. The information in between the two uplift ideas explains why the first deformation model may not be accurate and why the second deformation model may be necessary. I believe this information is important for understanding the reason for the second deformation model.'''

In the electromagnetic section there is a misspelling of altiplano. Fixed

The first sentence under seismic may not be needed. Fixed

Everything is well written and sourced. It does just seem more like an article about how Uturuncu is deforming because of the APMB than the APMB. Maybe adding some more information about the APMB and what's occurring in other locations. '''This was an oversight on my part for not including a section talking about the composition of the APMB. I've now added in a section that discusses this.'''

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
good tone and balance

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Could be expanded a little. While editing the article, I've added in some additional sources
 * 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
Great diversity of sources.

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?
 * One spelling error of Altiplano Fixed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Overall article is well organized and written.

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?
 * could be improved Edited the captions slightly to make them clearer
 * 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
The firt image of the lateral extent of the APMB is nice but I do not think the picture of fumaroles adds anything to the topic. I have removed that image and found another image/diagram that shows the extent of the deformation and one author's explanation of what may be going on under the surface.

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

New Article Evaluation
The topic is notable and deserves its own Wikipedia page, its well formatted, and has a fair number of sources.

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?
 * well written, widely sourced, knowledge explained very clearly
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The article feels heavy on the deformation about Uturuncu, maybe expand or add more information on the APMB, like are there other areas deforming? or making a section where the known parameters (%h2o, partial melt %, composition, heterogeneity or homogeneity in magmas erupted there, depth, size, etc) are more quickly read together. See above comments for how I have addressed these issues. Thanks for the suggestion of including a composition section; it was definitely a necessary addition.

Overall evaluation
Overall this article is really well done.