User:SaltySamuraiGirl/Ferromanganese nodules/Hannahclimbs 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)
 * Ferromanganese nodules
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:SaltySamuraiGirl/sandbox

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, but for pelagic zones
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Its a stub at the moment so no.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes. I dont think there's much recent work out there on ferromanganese nodules in lakes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, Ferromanganese nodules found in Lake Michigan have high arsenic, radium and barium concentrations compared to deep sea manganese nodules[1]. The elevated levels of arsenic in ferromanganese nodules in Lake Michigan may be an environmental concern” feels like it should have its own story/ section/ be elaborated on.  "In addition differing organic carbon content of the water and geology between lakes affect the composition of the ferromanganese nodules" This sentence could also have its own section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Does not apply

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?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * They're older, but I think there's not a lot of work done on manganese nodules in lakes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * YES!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A few, mostly missing commas and some confusing wording.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think it mostly 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?

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?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * There was nothing before so yes. It added a lot.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Yeah, it can be more complete.