User:MattDuchow/Slab suction/DreadnoughtusDino 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) MattDuchow
 * 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? No lead provided.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No lead provided.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No lead provided.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No lead provided.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No lead provided.

Lead evaluation
No lead to review.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content is related to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? All sources have been published within the past twenty years so it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content seems relevant, I am not sure if there is much missing content.

Content evaluation
Very decent content with only one or two spots that could have more information provided.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The tone is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No bias is taken.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All viewpoints are properly represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No persuasion within the content.

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone and balance are sufficient.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, quality citations were provided.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources reflect the available literature.
 * Are the sources current? All sources come from the past 20 years so they are fairly current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links for the sources work.

Sources and references evaluation
Reference list was good and all sources worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content was easy to understand and read. Only a few places of awkward sentences.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some grammatical errors, but they have been noted on the talk page of the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Topic is not broken down into subsections, but I am not sure how that would be accomplished with this topic.

Organization evaluation
Great organization with only a few places of awkward sentencing.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images provided.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images provided.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images provided.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images provided.

Images and media evaluation
No images provided.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The information in the sandbox helps complete the current article. More information is provided about slab suction with actual data and numbers.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is a deeper explanation of slab suction with quality data and comparison than the original article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Images or maybe maps could help provide a better idea of the information provided.

Overall evaluation
Overall, great information provided in the article. It will help improve the current article.