User:KRose4/Altiplano-Puna Magma Body/Johnmichael0705 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
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, this is a new article being created.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it states that the article is about the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body and provides an image for the location.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, this may just be nitpicky on my part, but the sections are Deformation and then Imaging, but the sentences in the lead section are listed as Imaging first and then Deformation.  May be better to just flip the sentences in the lead for uniformity with the following sections, but that is probably just my OCD! I rearranged the sentences slightly so that it matches the rest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything in the lead is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.  You may want to create links to tomography, seismic, gravity and electromagnetic analysis if available. I have added in what links I could find.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all the content is relevant given this is a new article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, since it is a new article and the references are mostly recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all the content contained is listed in the lead.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not an underrepresented population, but a topic that has not been covered previously.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I do believe it is neutral.  My only question is that since I am not familiar with the location of the magma body, are there other points of views from different authors that suggest a different location, volume or percent of melt?  I am just curious if there are other analyses that say something different, if not, this is fine. I've gone through and added in some more measurements and how they vary between different papers and authors. There has obviously been some pairing down on my part as I can't include everything, but hopefully what I have written provides a sufficient overview.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not heavily biased, refer to comment above.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Only underrepresented if there are analyses that pose a different conclusion that what is referenced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it is all informational.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are several references cited inline in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, very thorough in relation to number of available references.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, for the most part, they are within the last 10-15 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The list of references do show variation among author groups, whether they are historically marginalized is hard to tell based on surname.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is well-written and easy to read.  My only comment is in the Imaging section for Seismic, you also mention gravity and electromagnetic, but there is no need to include them here since you have sections following for both topics. I have removed that sentence. That section originally did not have subsections, so I had a summary sentence at the beginning that I forgot to remove when I split it into the various subsections.
 * 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, the topic is broken down into sections and subsections representing the major points.  Maybe you can add an example of what the imaging techniques look like to give the reader a reference point. I had wanted to add in an image or two that showed what the various imaging techniques looked like, but I have been unable to find any for the region that I can publish on Wiki.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the location in South America and showing the fumarole at Uturunku are good.  Are there any images of the entire area, maybe even Lidar that would show what the deformation looks like? I added in an image/diagram that shows the extent of the deformation in the region and one author's idea of what the deformation might look like. However, I've been unable to find acceptable images for Wiki that show the actual tomography, Lidar, etc. of the region.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, they are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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, it does meet the Notability requirement since there is no existing article and has plenty of references.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, it represents a wide variety of references 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? Yes, it does contain these as well as subsections.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, but more links could be made and potentially links to this article added to those articles to give more opportunities to view this article. Once this article is public, I will create links to it from some of the related articles that are already published.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, since it is a new article and the information is well-written and presents a lot of sourced information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The imaging techniques add a great value to the article and letting the reader know of a magmatic area that many may not know exists.
 * How can the content added be improved? Perhaps adding differing conclusions from other studies (if they exist), adding in some data that shows what each of the imaging techniques look like and how they are used. See comments above for how I have addressed this.