User:MattDuchow/Slab suction/Delaneyhopen 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?
 * MattDuchow and his article on Slab Suction
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:MattDuchow/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I enjoyed how you related it to others terms, and it was thorough yet concise.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first two sentences I believe are meant to be the introduction and they clearly layout basic information on all the layers connecting the creation of super continents.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, a few more sentences could be added to the lead for more detail but it's a good quick summary.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes new additions have been made
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and well organized.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content is directly related to slab subduction
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the content is recent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Possibly some relevance to the world view would benefit, like where they have noted this to occur, etc.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes the content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No bias noted
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No viewpoints left out or heavily weighted
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No persuasion is noted

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes there are a total of 4 sources listed and used throughout the article
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * These scientific journals include good solid sourcing
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes these sources are current within the last 20 years
 * 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?
 * Yes the content is well written with full sentences that are easy to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical/spelling errors noted
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think the article would benefit with headings of sectioning of some sort, for those who want to use this resource in a more distinct fashion (aka just looking for certain information).

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?

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, the known
 * 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?
 * Need sections and headings, and possibly some images
 * 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?
 * The background is great and very relatable.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * the overall content is great. It's concise and to the point but also very reader friendly.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Just add a little more organizational headings/sections!