User:San264/Enhanced geothermal system/San264 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sammiewolf (MsThermal)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MsThermal/sandbox


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Enhanced geothermal system

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

(It was hard to find what you edited since your username changed)


 * 1) For the FORGE section, you did not change anything. I think that their lead and overall information was good, and you did not necessarily need to change anything; however, it would be nice for you to introduce the topics you are going to talk about under the FORGE section (Geology, Thermal Characterization, CO2 Flux).
 * 2) I think the content is relevant and up to date. I really like how you are adding more information about the FORGE site. I think it is important and adds value to the overall article. I think you can add more information under the sections. I am not sure if you plan to add more sections, but your geology section is great. The thermal characterization and CO2 flux needs more.
 * 3) I think your tone and balance is great. Very neutral.
 * 4) I really appreciate the variety of sources you have, and that they are from all reputable sources. Great job!
 * 5) It is well organized and thought out. Like I mentioned, just add some information in the lead to the content you are going to discuss.
 * 6) I think the content is improving the article because it seems important to the topic. This section was also lacking detail you provided.