User:TimNMcN/Transverse aeolian ridges/Rhurlow 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) I am reviewing Tim's (TimNMcN's) sandbox
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: TimNMcN/Transverse aeolian ridges/

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
'''The lead begins with a definition of TARs which is exactly what people look for in the lead (Note: you put the abbreviated TARs twice in this lead sentence which does not seem necessary). The lead touches all the contents listed except for maybe past climate and limited activity, which I think could be added to the last sentence. The lead is very concise.'''

Tim: abbreviations fixed

'''What do you mean when you say "bright features"? What scale is this relative to?'''

Tim: revised to say "visually bright features"

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
'''The content is very relevant. I think that you could add in more links to works such as "topography" and just general geology jargon. The references span a wide timeline, which is good. I think that all the necessary content is there.'''

Tim: Added some more links.

'''For Aeolian Bedforms- One thing that might be helpful is a diagram of a ridge which points out things like amplitude, symmetry, impact/shadow zones. For someone like me who struggled with sed/strat geomorphology this visualization is important. Also, your last sentence has megaripples before Argentina and Iran which is does not seem necessary.'''

Tim: Added a link to aeolian processes. Megaripples are a morphological type disparate from ripples and dunes, so I have left it in.

'''For Past Climate- maybe talk about how the TARs could offer insight to your specific examples. What changes do we see in the TARs that reflect atmospheric conditions? Climatic dynamics?'''

Tim: Added a sentence about potential implications.

'''For Limited Activity- why are the majority of TARs immobile? What does it mean for one to be active/inactive? This is kind of intuitive, but might be good to add at lease one more sentence to this section. Or make this a subsection.'''

Tim: Added a sentence explaining immobility.

Pretty pictures - good job with these - nice variety.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
'''The tone is neutral and pays special attention to disagreeing interpretations of things (ex. Formation section). Nothing is heavily biased, I don't feel persuaded to feel any type of way towards TARs.'''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
'''Fantastic sourcing. They are thorough, relevant, diverse, and work when clicked.'''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
'''The content is well written. Some of the geology jargon is dense, but this makes the writing concise. Just be sure to utilize the linking. Minor grammatical errors that I mentioned above. Organization is good.'''

Tim: more links have been added.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
'''Great job on the images. The only thing is the size of the chart in morphology is a little strange, but it works because the images are large enough to see which is important. Most images are from NASA which is a good source and follows copyright regulations.'''

Tim: the diagram is a weak spot. I personally have not been able to figure out how to improve it, hopefully someone in the community can help.

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?

New Article Evaluation
'''This is a new article. Great sources. Maybe consider adding a "See Also" section that links to other pages or websites that could potentially be useful. You could also link your page in other "see also" sections in other articles.'''

Tim: added a see also

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?

Overall evaluation
Great job overall, images are a very strong part of this article.

Tim: thanks very much.