User:Lpiromalli/4ocean/Miguel6514 Peer Review

Peer review by Miguel Caraballo (4ocean)
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) Lpiromalli
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: 4ocean

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, surprisingly made it more interesting to read
 * 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? Yes, major sections are stated
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all information is relevant
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? very concise not overly detailed

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? All content is relevant to article

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes not over biased
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, view points go well with the topic
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, just provides more information

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes all reliable sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes relevant
 * 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? Well written, correct grammar
 * 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, well organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? 4 ocean logo
 * 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? 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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes all present
 * 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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, overall great article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very strong
 * How can the content added be improved? Not much needs to be improved