User:Vallion04/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami/Jojomartinez13 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

 * I am working on 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami by user: Vallion04/
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it seems that it was added to the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes that is all found in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes the sections were mentioned in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Everything present in the lead is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and has enough information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes all the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes everything seems to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are still some citations needed to be added to the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes this article deals with a underrepresented topic where there was no previous information about it.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes this article is neutral on the topic.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no biased claims that I could find in the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No everything seems to be represented fairly.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No this article is just there to inform of the past earthquake.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, it seems all information's expect a few where situations were missing.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do reflect the literature of the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes they are current sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes many of the sources were
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links i checked were working fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the structure of the article made it easy to read and find information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were little to no errors that I found while reading the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is broken down into sections that make it easy to read and understand.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes very good images relating to the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? They include good captions about what we are seeing.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it seems they do adhere to the copyright regulation.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yeah the way they are organized works well with the structure.

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? Yes it does meet the requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? All of the possible sources on this article about the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake seem to be covered in the article.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes we are able to find article patterns within the article
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Definitely it links to quite a few of other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe the content added filled in any gaps it may have had.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think everything is organized well and has enough quantities of information and sites for it to be accurate.
 * How can the content added be improved? The way it is right now is fine just going in and adding the missing citations and that would be all.