User:Suidrew/Physics engine/Timbenuka Peer Review

General info
(Suidrew)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Suidrew/Physics engine
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Physics engine

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Lead is present.
 * Lead is concise.
 * Lead sentence is concise and indicates the points being made in additions intended for the existing article.
 * Lead does not, however, include the description of the article's major sections (but the sub-lead titles are present).
 * Lead does present new information to the article.

Content


 * Content is possesses relevance pertaining to the topic.
 * Added content is current.
 * Information missing in "Scientific Engines" section.
 * The content does not, necessarily, address "underrepresented" information, but does add information previously not included within the article.

Tone and Balance


 * Content is neutrally written.
 * No indication of desire from editor to persuade the reader in any one direction.
 * No noticeable bias is indicated.
 * More information should be present in both sub-leads - much information seems to be lacking concerning the topics chosen to for addition into article.

Sources and References


 * Unable to view source in order to judge the credibility - or proper representation within the article's additions - due to the book being privately owned.
 * Only one source cited.
 * The link works - leads to google books for purchase of the supposed source material.

Organization


 * Information in the editor's addition is concise.
 * Information unclear in some sections of the "Rigid Body Engine" addition (ex.: "iterative, impluse-based,..." there is no descriptive noun following this to explain to the reader what exactly the Rigid Body Engine is).
 * Many grammatical errors (lack of proper punctuation throughout).
 * Editor's wording is redundant (ex.: high usage of "more" in first sentence).
 * Information is appropriately placed into sub-sections.

Images and Media


 * No additional images/media present.

Overall Impression


 * Information included seems as though it would be much needed additions to the article.
 * The editor's additions are still lacking in finalization. Much information is still absent from these sub-sections.
 * Bibliography is displayed perfectly - sections are clearly described with sub-lead titles.

Class Peer Review


 * The most informative part of this article's additions, for me, was simply the introduction of what - exactly - a Physics Engine is. Prior to yesterday, I had no idea what it was.
 * I am most interested in is how, exactly, the physics engine makes the mathematics of calculating experienced force on a particle "more difficult." I wish there was a little more listed here.
 * The above statement is also where I feel the article remains unfulfilled. I would like to see a little more in-depth information on this.
 * Nothing seems it should be removed from the paragraph, nor does it seem as though any of the information should be placed into another part of the article.
 * It would be interesting to view how the Particle Engine functions in analyzing these forces, in laymens terms.