User:AleahHahn/Kuroshio Current/Laurelceleste22 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?
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

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Kuroshio current page.

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AleahHahn/Kuroshio Current
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: Nice concise lead section, although it is missing an overview of the article's main sections. Would add 1-2 sentences that introduces the article's content. Also a large gap in text after the Lead, I would suggest trying to reformat to close the gap. I would also suggest replacing the gyre image in the Lead with one that identifies the Kuroshio current specifically, as it could better orient readers.

Content: Good coverage in topics and content related to the Kuroshio current. The content is through and well-written. Nice use of images as well.

First, I think that the Marine Life section could be moved to the end, as the Climate Implications and Current Intrusion Dynamics sections seem more important. I think some additional information regarding current formation (wind direction, upwelling, Ekman transport, Coriolis effect) could be added to the Physical Properties section, in just 1-2 sentences. For the Mode Water Formation section, I would suggest defining "mode water" in one of the first few sentences, because it would help readers more readily understand that section and its importance. One idea could also be to add some information about research on the Kuroshio, like if there are long-term research or sampling programs of note.

Your tone and content is neutral, and is well suited to a Wikipedia page. The only suggestion I have is to remove the "unfortunately" within the biodiversity section, to make it more neutral. With that, I think you could remove the biodiversity background sub-section and simply discuss biodiversity as an important ecological metric in the Marine Life section, linking to the Wikipedia biodiversity page. If you decide to keep that background section, I would suggest moving it to the Marine Life section.

References: The Deep Sea Erosion section seems to be missing references, and several of the Marine Life subsections might need more references, such as the Phytoplankton and Fish subsections. It looks like a few of your references need updated dates, those are easy to fix if you edit the reference. Overall, you include many great references, and the article seems to be well cited.