User:Nicolas Xoan/North Atlantic Aerosols and Marine Ecosystems Study/Rahoward3 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? NAAMES Group
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nicolas Xoan/North Atlantic Aerosols and Marine Ecosystems Study

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has a good summary of the project
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Seems to contain the right amount of information

Lead evaluation
The lead looks very good to me but maybe be careful about the section talking about OSU and NASA leading the project. I know it was mentioned that there are several other groups involved in this project but that isn't clear in the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? New article
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes - project isn't very old
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The critical depth hypothesis already has a page so it seems like there's too much repeated here that could just be a link. The bioaerosols section needs to be filled in. This is the same for several sections. There's too much extra info about physical oceanography that would fit in a physical oceanography page, not a page about a research project. Lots of headings without information.

Content evaluation
It seems like there's a lot of background information on the processes when this is an article about a project, so I think the focus in the section about bio, oceanographic processes need to connect more back to the project. This could be done by relating back the tools used in the project to what processes or events they are measuring, or why the project wants to look at those things not just what they are.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
Balanced and unbiased tone

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
Sources and references seem to be sufficient.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It's easy to read but can be a little to technical or with too much jargon in some spots.
 * 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 sections about the actual project need to be near the top. I wasn't able to tell much about what the tools used were or what the project goals were until the middle of the article

Organization evaluation
There could be less jargon and more links to explain some of the topics, reorganize the sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes except maybe figure 7 which I can't even read
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? It seems like it
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
Images were good except figure 7

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are 34 sources and it seems to cover literature on this project
 * 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? Could use some more links

New Article Evaluation
Could use some more links to explain jargon and the see also section would be useful for eliminating sections that already have articles about them

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The parts about the project have added a lot but some is just a duplicate of already existing articles
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is a lot of detail about this project and it provides a good overview of how it took place
 * How can the content added be improved? Remove duplicated content