User:Sethpedia/Cladding (fiber optics)/Ajmellquist Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sethpedia


 * Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Sethpedia/Cladding (fiber optics)


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

Lead
Sethpedia did update the lead by revising some sentences to sounds more concise. The introductory sentence does provide a clear, lead in. Additionally, the lead section does have a brief introduction of the following sections, although does not discuss effect on numerical aperture. This is rather specific though, so may not need to be addressed this early on.

Content
It doesn't appear that the author added a significant amount to the body yet compared to the original article. The content does not deal with equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral and very scientific. Nothing appears particularly biased or overrepresented. I think the author should continue adding neutral content and expand on the sections.

Organization
The article is very well-organized into 3 separate sections after the lead. I think the author should continue this structure, and maybe even add in new sections. The writing is concise and there do not appear to be any grammatical errors.

Images and media
None have been added yet.

Overall Impressions
The author has done an excellent job improving the article thus far, and should continue adding in content and sources as done already. The writing is concise, neutral, and the author added a source which is great. However, the author could benefit from continuing to add sources, perhaps from peer-reviewed journals to increase author diversity. Additionally, depending on the amount of content in peer-reviewed journals, the author could add more content in general. Perhaps the author could expand on existing sections or create new ones. Also, adding photos can help provide a visual for the reader.