User:Tigitar/Fault trace/Torrin Smith 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? (Isaac Cook)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Fault trace

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 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, the lead provides a general description for the three categories that follow it. Some more specific reference to the mars category could be useful.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all information mentioned in the lead is expanded upon later.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, however, a few spots could be reworded and condensed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, very much so.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, for the most part. However, non of the sources provided are exceptionally recent. It might help if an even more recent source could be found.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There really isn't any content that doesn't belong, it's moreso that this topic is so broad that many more specifications could be discussed. However, the broad important categories have seem to have been discussed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes for the most part, the hint of bias I see is that the author is interested and biased towards more information about mars rather than other more general concepts. (But this is okay, its very specific as compared to the rest of the article. It would eventually be covered in a much broader article)
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Possibly the martian topic, but if so, only barely.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

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?
 * For the most part, with respect to what the term "up to date" refers to in geology. As in the concepts don't change dramatically all that often.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, there are a few spots where some sentences could be rewritten to flow a little better. But even those sentences read well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No spelling errors, but I felt a couple of sentence grammatical errors were made.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, they helped quite a bit. And very good images I might add. Very fascinating.
 * 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

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?