User:Mwill347/4ocean/Mp1999-70 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) Mwill347
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mwill347/4ocean

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, peer added several leads to add to article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, peer included intro section
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is not yet a formulated paragraph/s but he clearly set some points
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It seems he will add to the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise. It still needs to get to the paragraph/s but he set it out

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? There is no content that does not relate, and it misses the complete writing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I do not see any biased terms
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Viewpoints are not overrepresented, but are clearly stated
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I do not think so

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes he added these in the bibliography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mwill347/4ocean/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes.
 * Are the sources current? yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? they do.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is not yet written, but bullet points are.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is broken into sections and points.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not yet, at least
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only (N/A)
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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * 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? Yes, it seems it adds information that would strengthen the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Yes
 * How can the content added be improved? First by writing it as paragraphs, but ideas I think are great and they show every detail and things that need to be added.