User:UNMls/Fluvial Seismology/Regulustar Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing UNMls' work.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Does not exist, user appears to be creating a new article.

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Review as of 11/21/2021:

Lead
Yes, it appears that the lead reflects new content. Yes, the introductory sentence clearly describes the article topic. Yes, except for the concept on hysteresis. The lead is concise.
 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic. Yes, it appears that the content added is up to date. No, but it appears that some sentences still need to be properly cited. Yes, there is no article on Fluvial Seismology currently available on Wikipedia, so it is an underrepresented topic.
 * 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?

Tone and Balance
Yes, it appears that the content added is neutral. No, there are no heavily biased claims. No, it does not appear that viewpoints are over or under-represented. No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader to be in favor or any position.
 * 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?

Sources and References
Yes, it appears that new content has reliable secondary sources. Yes, the content reflects the cited sources. Yes, the sources appear to be thorough at this stage in writing the article. Yes, the sources are current. Yes, the sources seem to be written by diverse authors. It seems that these are the best sources, as they are all from peer-reviewed articles. Yes, the links work.
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?
 * 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?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?
 * Check a few links, do they work?

Organization
Yes, the content is well written. No, there do not appear to be any grammatical or spelling errors. Yes, the content is well organized - however the headings should be changed when it is time to move the article out of the sandbox.
 * 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?

Images and Media
No, there are no images at this time. No images. No images. No images.
 * 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?

For New Articles Only
Yes, the article meets the notability requirements. There are 11 sources so far, and they seem to be a good representation of research done on the subject. Yes - the section headings need to be changed. It is not certain that infoboxes are a feature that are necessary for this article. No, this is something that the user could work on.
 * 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
Yes, especially since this is a new article. The content is well structured, straightforward, and well-cited. Add links to other articles for keywords, and perhaps add images. Add a heading section specifically for the bibliography. Also add the bibliography to the bibliography page for the article.
 * 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?