User:Paigelpowers/Manus Plate/Nusachenko 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) Paige Powers (Paigelpowers)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Paigelpowers/Manus Plate

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?

Lead evaluation
''Good and concise - I would recommend maybe not starting every sentence the same way with "The Manus Plate"; maybe use "it" instead to sound less repetitive. Some of the sentences could also probably be combined to make them sound a bit more developed but still concise.''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
All content is relevant and up to date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Content is unbiased and factual.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Good addition of sources; article still needs a reference section with links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Good separation into topic sections - remember to add a Reference section.

Under the Formation section, I got what you mean by "in-between", but not totally sure what you meant by "on top of" transform boundaries.

Watch your comma usage; some are unnecessary - I would maybe copy your sentences into Microsoft word and enable the grammar edits to find where you can make some corrections and then change those spots in your article.

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?

Images and media evaluation
Maybe include some images if possible.

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?

Overall evaluation
''Good expansion to what was already on Wikipedia. Never hurts to add more info if possible and if there is any more available that's relevant. Also, instead of the traditional in-text citation format, include links to the sources - I think there's an exercise explaining how to do this on the Wikipedia course training page.''

Nice work!