User:Nickgoldthorpe/Archaeoseismology/Torrin Smith 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? (Nick Goldthorpe)
 * 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?
 * Beings how there isn't much information, I would say the lead adequatly reflects the new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No major sections yet.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes :)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The bit about china should probably be mentioned later in it's own section. The lead should just be the overview, the "broad general stuff" that you want to talk about more specifically later in other more specific sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * No citations
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Lot's missing, but I have faith that you will write something great :)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, but without sources, hard to tell.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Underpresented
 * 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?
 * Not yet
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Not yet
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not yet
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Not yet :)

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it could be reworded but it works for now.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Other than sentence structure, no.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Not yet

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?