User:Qtwinbush45/Solar eclipses on the Moon/Bamcclure18 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? Qtwinbush45
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Solar eclipses on the Moon - This is an existing article

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? no
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed

Lead evaluation
A bit heavy for the non scientific reader. It does not give the reader a good idea of what is in the rest of the article.

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? not sure about missing content but everything there belongs

Content evaluation
Content is probably correct but it is hard to read as the terminology used is not defined.

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? Yes as some of the information seems repetitive.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content paragraph addition is on the talk page but not in the article. The additional information is new, relevant and interesting but is not actually in the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
For the level of scientific information in the article there is close to no citations.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? the additional paragraph written in the talk page - Yes.
 * 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? Yes? only one paragraph at this point.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?Yes - almost too well as they are quite lengthy
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

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? content has improved the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? New interesting information
 * How can the content added be improved? go ahead and put it in the article

Overall evaluation
Your addition listed on the talk page is good - the existing article is very heavy on scientific terminology some that is undefined so the article is difficult to read. However, good job on the information you added. Based on your example additional updates of the same caliber would greatly improve the article.