User:Nickgoldthorpe/Archaeoseismology/Paigelpowers Peer Review

Peer review- Paige Powers
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? Nickgoldthorpe
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nickgoldthorpe/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The new material references events in 1960, which is good, but also an event in 226BC. How do the two of these relate to each other? What makes them note-able?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article should discuss more about how this field of study is used in modern times to help research a variety of events in the past.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added is one-sided and doesn't show one sided discussion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are 2 sources cited in the bibliography. The sources aren't obviously cited in the text of the rough draft.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There is a lot of information that can be used to discuss Archaeoseismology, so maybe adding more sources that offer a variety of outlooks. The current sources give information on specific events, rather than the science as a whole.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * 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? The last sentence of the first paragraph is a little confusing and could be more clear and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The last sentence of the the first paragraph is a little jumbled and hard to follow and understand.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media No


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * 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
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? Not yet.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list is currently 2 sources, which are both helpful, but there are better sources that can be used. There are sources that offer better insight into 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not yet

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?