User:Ryan-is-Gneiss/Mine Dewatering/Fosterelliott 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? yes the lead has been updated to include the new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence that describes the articles topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does include a table of contents, but does not describe the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes the lead includes an overall definition of the topic that is not included in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? the lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the added content is related to the article topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The added content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There does not appear to be missing content or content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No the content added is 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?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? only some of the added content has sources, and more are necessary to back up the claims.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are only a few sources, and therefore do not reflect the entire available literature.
 * Are the sources current? the sources are current
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the source links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The paragraphs under the 'Problems with Mine Dewatering' subtitle is very long and not concise, there are run on sentences that make it difficult to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are grammatical errors but no spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the added content is well organized but could be broken down into smaller sections to reflect the major points of the article.

Images and Media
There was no added images or 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
this article is not a new article.

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? The article is more complete with the addition of the new content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the added content is the addition of the lead, and make it concise and clear what the article is about.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content added could include more sources for the claims, and the run on sentences could be broken down into smaller more concise ones to make the read much easier.