User:UNMls/Fluvial Seismology/San264 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

UNMls


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UNMls/Fluvial_Seismology?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)


 * 1) I noticed you are creating a new article! That's great. I also think fluvial seismology is a new and equally important topic in seismology and understanding fluvial systems. I think your lead is great and overall a great introduction to the topic. I don't think much has to change. The middle part seems out of place, perhaps remove it or transition to the information in a better way. I really like the first and third sections of your lead.
 * 2) I think your content is relevant and since this is a newer technique, is up to date. Since this has not been written yet, I think it is great! However, the article body is a tad confusing. The theory, signals, and instruments can have more information. How does the theory relate to the topic, as well as the signal. I really like the case studies section, you can maybe add more information.
 * 3) Your tone and balance is great. I don't see the need for any changes. Very neutral.
 * 4) Regarding sources, you have a lot of sources left out and incomplete sources. I would just go back and make sure you add the appropriate sources from varying sources. Perhaps, try adding government affiliated sources on that topic like the USGS as well.
 * 5) The organization was well done as well. Just refer back to the previous bullets for suggestions.
 * 6) There are no figures, so I would add some.
 * 7) Since it is a new article, you'll need more sources, and the sections should be more clear (as I said earlier).
 * 8) Overall, the content is good and interesting! I think you can add some more detail in some sections, but overall, well done!