User:Nworku3/Sheeted dyke complex/Shopkins31 Peer Review

Peer review (Sydney Hopkins)

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Nworku3
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nworku3/sandbox

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 section gives a good, overall summary of what sheeted dyke complexes are, and how they are formed. The introductory sentence of the lead section does a good job of describing the topic of the article. Since the article has not been broken down into sections yet, you will need to make sure that the lead briefly describes your added sections. Almost everything in the lead is discussed further throughout the article except where you mentioned the way in which sheeted dyke complexes are formed. You stated they form in a "sub-parallel formation", and maybe you could go on and further describe this process. I was able to look up this type of formation, so I got a good understanding of what this process looks like and means, but you might want to create a link, or further describe this process so the average reader understands. The lead is concise, and good in terms of describing the overall process and formation of sheeted dyke complexes.

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?

Content evaluation

All content is relevant to the topic. The sources where information was gathered are up-to-date, so content also appears up-to-date. You could add a little more information on the formation, as well as the significance of sheeted dyke complexes.

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

All content added is neutral. All viewpoints seem pretty balanced, and supporting content for each viewpoint is good. There is no bias or an attempt to persuade the reader in one direction or another.

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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Most content is backed up by reliable sources, except for the last paragraph, which needs sourcing. The sources listed seem to be thorough, and give sufficient information on the subject. All sources are current. The links in the article work correctly.

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 in the article is generally easy to follow and understandable. There are certain areas in which an average reader would have trouble following terminology, but you used links to other articles to help guide readers through. There are a few parts that could be improved grammatically, such as adding some commas in your more complex sentences. Also, the last sentence in your first paragraph should be split up, as it is a run-on sentence. Content needs to be broken down into sections to better organize article.

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

The article includes images that enhance understanding of the topic. The image added does a good job of illustrating what the formation looks like. The image is well captioned, and laid out in a visually appealing way. The image adheres to copyright regulations.

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?

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

The article is definitely more complete, and goes into better detail of how this complex occurs. The content added is also way more readable and understandable than that of the original article, but could still use a little more content to make it easy to understand for the average reader. Adding sections to the article would help better organize the content, as well as make it more readable. You could also add a little more information to the exact way sheeted dyke complexes form. Overall, the article was interesting and a good read.