User:Keggan14/Tectonic burial/Nusachenko 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) Keggan Georgesen (Keggan14)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Keggan14/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Concise introductory sentence and expansion on the original content.

Good overview of major sections included in a contents section.

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
Majority of content is relevant to the topic - the only section that may not be as crucial is the Dating section. Having one sentence with the link to radiometric dating is good, but I think having a whole section on dating strays a little from the main topic.

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
Content is all factual and unbiased.

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
Good list of sources and nice job with citations.

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
Well-organized and separated into topic sections.

"Evolution's" in the introductory paragraph doesn't need an apostrophe.

Last sentence of introductory paragraph is a little unclear; do you mean that the metamorphism overlaps with both diagenesis and increased pressure and temperature, or that it overlaps with diagenesis when there is increased temperature and pressure?

"Radiometric dated" in the Dating section should say "Radiometrically dated", if you keep this section in the article.

For the first sentence in the Effects section, I would say "It has been debated whether or not burial depth" rather than "that burial depth..."

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
Maybe add some images if possible, but not necessary.

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
''Good organization and overall expansion of the original content on Wikipedia. I would just watch grammar and sentence structure, and maybe remove the dating section and instead expand more on the examples section. More information never hurts if available and relevant.''

Good work!