User:San264/Shadow zone/Hamsquirrel Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

San264


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:San264/Shadow_zone?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Shadow zone

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello! Here is my review of your draft. I've taken the default questions as guides. My answers are in bold.

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is pleasantly concise.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, definitely.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Some references are as recent as this year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, as there are no disputes on the topic.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I don't think there's much debate on the topic of shadow zones.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, and often by 2-3 sources at once.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? It appears that they do.
 * Are the sources current? Yes. Many of them are from this year or the last decade or so.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? No, since these are papers directly from the scientists.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, even if you did not already know about the topic.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I saw a couple of typos-- "precent" instead of "percent" and "asscociated" instead of "associated."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it definitely added a lot more information to the preexisting article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is more detail added, and it's easy to understand even for a layperson.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some of the information might be redundant if a reader clicked in from an article about seismic waves, but I don't think that's a problem.