User:Semunm17/Crater counting/SpaceCat13 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

semunm17


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * sandbox


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

Lead
Excellent lead with a good summary of the technique. I recommend including a sentence about how this technique works best for planetary bodies with little to no atmosphere or tectonic resurfacing. I also recommend combining the first two sentences (this is what google shows if the Wikipedia article is the first thing to pop up):

Crater counting is a method for estimating the age of a planet's surface based upon the assumptions that when a piece of planetary surface is new, then it has no impact craters; impact craters accumulate after that at a rate that is assumed known.

I would always recommend more citations, even in the lead. Every sentence should have a citation.

You can also link to other Wikipedia articles like Jupiter, icy moons, and Saturn. Although I think most of the important ones are already linked!

Overall, I think this is a great lead that can be elevated to excellent with a few minor additions.

Content
The content added is relevant to the topic. For the most part, the content seems up to date. The cratering community is active and constantly refining its techniques. I might suggest including information about the new Chinese missions and how they can offer new radiogenic dating for a different part of the Moon that could improve the statistics. Overall, the content added is an excellent contribution!

Tone and Balance
I myself am a based crater counter that believes in the technique. I do think this article presents the challenges and shortcomings in a respectful manner. I recommend omitting phrases like, "leading to some who may question its effectiveness." Let the reader come to their own conclusion.

Sources and References
Basically every sentence should have a citation. I think a lot of the references included are good and could be used to site more ideas presented. There doesn't need to be additional references (although more is always better), but there should be more citations to the rich sources in the bibliography.

Organization
The content added is well written and to the point. I did not come across any obvious grammatical errors. I think you could put the "History" section first (after the lead) but it works either way.

Images and Media
I think including more images would really help this article, but not just any image would work. I think adding more images illustrating how craters are measured in a crater counting program or cumulative size frequency distribution plots show isochron ages could help the ready visualize the types of data products and plots associated with this field of study.

Overall Impressions
This is a much needed improvement to this article. The content is well written and flows nicely. My main suggestions are to include more citations within the text and images if possible. I think this article can stand on its own and be a good summary to a general reader.