User:Mickinahan/Organic fertilizer/Amt1997 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mickinahan


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mickinahan/newsandbox


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Organic fertilizer

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead has been updated to reflect the new content. The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topic.

The lead indeed includes a brief description of the article's major sections.

The lead includes all relevant information that is present in the article, and is not overly detailed.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic, up-to-date, and provides a fair summary of the article. There is no missing content, however the editor only included one section to work on.

Tone and Balance

The content added by the editor is fairly neutral, and no points addressed was biased. The viewpoints can be expanded a little, but overall the information was quite good.

The content does not persuade the reader.

Sources and References

Majority of the new content added by the editor is backed up by a reliable source, however some sentences within the 'Mineral Fertilizers' section are not backed up by any source.

Majority of the content accurately reflect the sources, and the sources were found to be journals or peer-reviewed articles.

The sources are thorough and are current.

All the links were checked and worked just fine.

Organization

The content added is well-written, and easy to read.

There is no grammatical or spelling errors.

There is only one section added, so there was not much to judge in terms of the flow of the sections.

Images and Media

No images were used at all.

Overall Impressions

The content added was fairly informative, however I think it was only limited into one section. The quality of the new content was good, and improved the mineral section.

The editor expanded on mineral fertilizers, which made the article stronger in terms of information towards this section that the original article did lack.

There should have been more information towards the other sections of the article, and the topic in general, which the editor did not include.