User:SVClarke94/Mass flow rate/Sara J Mahmoud 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? (SVClarke94)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SVClarke94/Mass flow rate (sandbox) Mass flow rate (article)

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
The lead is short and concise, recounting vital details and theory in an pseudo introduction paragraph before leading to the content paragraph. All of the remarked information is relevant and later addressed in detail within the article. The very first statement, "In physics and engineering, mass flow rate is the mass of a substance which passes per unit of time," acts as the introductory sentence that describes the topic. The lead does not necessarily describe the article's major sections but is summarized through a table of contents.

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
The content is relevant and updated to reflect the topic's current understanding. To my own knowledge there is no missing, unfinished, or unnecessary content within the article. The author added an equation to the "usage" section which provided further vital information and enhanced the article.

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
The article presents itself in a factual tone, thus is neutral with no detected bias. The author did not underrepresent or overrepresent any concept.

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
The article posses an extensive list of references that ranges from 1978-2015. In general, the references represent current information and studies. The content within the article are followed by an aptly numbered reference. The reference hyperlinks all work after clicking on them. The author has added relative references that was not present in the article beforehand.

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 article is well written and breaks down a difficult topic for an easy understanding. The content is well organized in which the topic is introduced in the lead with further elaboration in the "alternative equations," "usage," "analogue quantities" section. The sections are well organized and follow after each other in a manner of linear understanding. There is no glaring grammatical or spelling errors within the 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
There is one image within the article. The image does provide well needed context for the topic with its appropriate caption. The image appears to adhere to copyright regulation.

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
Non-Applicable

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
The article was enhanced well by the author. The content added was relevant to the mathematical theory and equations for the topic. The article could further be improved with additional pictures if relevant and perhaps an expansion on real life applications of the topic.