User:TimNMcN/Transverse aeolian ridges/SpaceCat13 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? User:TimNMcN Transverse aeolian ridges
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: here

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the Lead has been slimmed down to convey a concise summary of TARs at the start of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the Lead is a strong introduction to a topic that might not be familiar to a lot of readers, even in related scientific fields.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead's last sentence mentions specific aspects of the topic that will be addressed by the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the Lead is an appropriate summary of the information that is expanded upon in the body of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No, it's just right.

Lead evaluation
The new Lead is more concise and only includes important information to introduce TARs.

Tim: thanks!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the information presented is clear and describes TARs in an approachable manner. It is not overly quantitative but still reads like an overview scientific article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it even has a spot for a paper in review on feathered TARs!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, this article is thorough and includes relevant information to help the reader understand TARs and aeolian processes on Mars.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't think so.

Content evaluation
The content is a strength for the article. It is very well written and makes TARs approachable to curious readers.

Tim: thanks!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the article does not make any overreaching conclusions or takes any one side.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article elaborates on well established knowledge and notes gaps in scientific understanding.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, this article is well balanced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, this article has a neutral, factual tone.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance of the article are another strength. The article focuses on facts and peer-reviewed publications.

Tim: thanks again!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, this article almost has too many sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the citations are an extensive reflection of the current scientific literature.
 * 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? I'm not going to go through all of them, but the ones I did try worked.

Sources and references evaluation
Another strength of this article is the extensive reference list. The author clearly knows the material very well.

Tim: 'almost too many sources'--yes, they seem to have accumulated after I've written the same literature review 5+ times...

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clearly written. It builds on scientific knowledge and allows the reader to understand the material without an extensive geology background.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I would argue that the "Limited activity" section could be scrapped and incorporated elsewhere since it is only one sentence long.

Organization evaluation
The first half of the article is well organized. The last sections are shorter and might benefit from being consolidated. Overall, the article is easy to follow and laid out sensibly.

Tim: I have added a little more to the "Limited activity" section, and renamed it. I hope to leave it as its own section as more work is sure to be done soon in this area. Hopefully in the next year or so there will be more papers on the subject and the section can be fleshed out.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, I think the "morphology" gallery is extremely helpful.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the simple descriptions aid the example images very well.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. I think their organization is intuitive.

Images and media evaluation
The images add a lot to this article and provide a clear picture to the reader.

Tim: thanks!

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
I don't believe this is a new article but it is notable. It is a more specialized topic but TARs continue to be studied today and help build our understanding of Martian aeolian processes.

Tim: I agree. Not sure many people will read this article currently, maybe my dissertation can help with that though!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The additions are a vast improvement to the original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content, the approachable, factual language, and the images added are the strongest part of this article.
 * How can the content added be improved? The only recommendation I have is to consolidate the shorter sections at the end of the article or expand upon them so there isn't just one sentence in a section.

Overall evaluation
This is a very strong article in its current state!

Tim: a final thanks.