User:Ryan-is-Gneiss/Mine Dewatering/Dan-is-gniess 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? Ryan-is-Gneiss
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ryan-is-Gneiss/Mine Dewatering

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? Nope, everything in the lead is mentioned or talked about in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Yes, my peer added a few sentences in the topic to show what he is writing about in the article. Yes, the lead describes everything what the article is talking about. There isn't really any specific details. Also there are a lot of paragraphs which are unorganized and they do not state what the topic is talking about. Everything in the lead is mentioned or talked about in the article. The lead is concise, but there should be a bit more in it to cover everything that the article is talking about. *The lead needs to be much longer.

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
Yes, my peer added a few sentences talking about the issues and he mentions and explains it thoroughly later in the article. All the content is up to date, also all the sources work and are reliable and up to date. There is a lot of content and there is not any content that shouldn't belong there.

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
Yes, the content added is neutral and there is no biased information mentioned. There are not any claims that seem to be very biased. Most of the viewpoints are presented well. Some seem very over presented compared to other different sections in the article. Yes, the article helps readers understand the advantages and disadvantages.

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
All the new content has reliable sources and each paragraph and statement is backed up with a citations. All the sources are thorough and work when clicked on. They also are reliable and come from papers. They reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are current and fit in. All the links work.

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
The content that my peer wrote is concise clear and easy to read. There are not any grammatical errors seen. The article is organized but there should be more headings which will organize the groups of paragraphs. There should also be a better legend stating where each paragraph is.

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
There are no images.

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?

New Article Evaluation
There are many sources and it supports Wikipedia's Notability. There are only 4 sources so the list is not as big so it is not exhausting. It represents all the available literature on the subject. Yes, the article follows the patterns of other similar articles, there are a few things to work on such as organization and headings. There are a few other links referencing other articles.

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
My peer has added and improved the information on the quality of the article. There is no biased information, it is somewhat structured and it has very relevant information for readers to understand the topic. There is a lot of information on pros and cons. The article can be improved a bit by organizing the ideas and paragraphs into more detailed links. Also, there should be a few more sources for the amount of paragraphs involved in it. there are a few paragraphs with 2-6 sentences with no sources. also, some sentences are spoken in 1st person. The article should be all written in third person and stay in the same tense. Overall, the article is very good.