User:MsThermal/Enhanced geothermal system/Regulustar Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sammiewolf/MsThermal


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Enhanced Geothermal System

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Review as of 11/30/2021:

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No, it does not appear that the Lead section has been updated to reflect the new content. The changes are to the section in the article titled "FORGE".


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, there is an introductory sentence that briefly describes the article topic.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, the Lead does not include a description for the Research and Development section.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, it appears that the content added is up to date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No, but it appears that the end of the section may be incomplete (missing an image?).


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, this article adds to the underrepresented topic on the FORGE laboratory.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, it appears that the content added is neutral.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, there are no heavily biased claims.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, it does not appear that viewpoints are over or under-represented.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader to be in favor or any position.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, it appears that new content has reliable secondary sources.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?

Yes, the content reflects the cited sources.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, the sources appear to be thorough at this stage in writing this section of the article.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, the sources are current.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes, the sources seem to be written by diverse authors.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

It seems that these are the best sources, as they are all from peer-reviewed articles or official news or government sites.


 * Check a few links, do they work?

Yes, the links work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, the content is well written.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Overall there are few grammar errors:

First paragraph, last sentence: perhaps change the future tense in the sentence? i.e. "The University of Utah is expected to receive up to $140 million for cutting edge geothermal research and development between 2018-2023." I suggest this change because the tense may confuse future readers to think that this is an ongoing process after the funding has ended.

Last paragraph, capitalize the word "celsius".

Last paragraph, correct spelling of the word "drees" to "degrees".

Overall formatting - add commas to numbers larger than 1,000, i.e. "1,525-2,896 meters", or remove them, i.e. "~5000-10000 ft".

After the last paragraph - is an image supposed to be added here? "CO2 flux C-isotope characterization" is underlined and implies more work will be done.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, the content is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No, there are no images at this time.


 * Are images well-captioned?

No images.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

No images.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

No images.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. is the article more complete?

Yes, this section in the original article will be more thorough.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The content is well structured, straightforward, and well-cited.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Check for grammar and formatting errors (see suggestions above), and perhaps add images if necessary. Also add the bibliography to the bibliography page for the article.