User:Spooky31/Observational history of comets/At00naSammich 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) Spooky31
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Observational history of comets

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, they added a sentence to the introduction to reflect their additions.
 * 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? It is concise and to the point.

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and accurately summarizes the overall scope of the article and what details are included in it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, they filled a large gap by mentioning the Rosetta mission
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, there is a variety of different ideas in each section, but all of them add to the overall scope of describing how different people observed comets.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
'''I think the content added is fantastic. I can really see how the stuff you added to the depth of the observational history for comets.'''

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

Tone and balance evaluation
Great work maintaining neutral and objective!

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? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links I checked all worked.

Sources and references evaluation
Great job picking sources for your information!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, there is not overly complex language that bogs down the reader, and the hyperlinked terms were helpful in understanding the topic at hand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Stellar organization and language choices!

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the visual of the Rosetta mission was very nice to have alongside the text
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
'''I really like the video you added to your section! it was nice to see a rendition of the comet and some commentary about it!'''

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? The added section adds to the total amount of information on the page and also brings a more modern perspective to the mainly ancient perceptions of the rest of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? I can't think of any ways that their additions could be improved.

Overall evaluation
'''I'm not surprised by the professionalism and thorough additions that Spooky31 has made. Just by reading their peer review of my additions, I could tell that they were on the ball in regards to what Wikipedia is about and these additions are a prime example of this. In addition to fantastic textual additions, Spooky31 went above and beyond to add a video to their section. Absolutely stellar work!'''