User:Dan-is-gniess/Ore Shoot/Fadinaddeh Peer Review

Peer review[edit]

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

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The edits are still on the sandbox and have not been moved to the article, it looks like the lead has not been updated for this reason.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There is one line that gives a definition.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content being added is basically adding more detail to what already existed.
Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the content added has papers published on it in 2020.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? yes there is no bias in the content added.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no there are no biased claims.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no it will not.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes all new content is cited properly.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes they do.
Are the sources current? yes the sources added are from 2008-2020.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes all links added work.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content was very well written and explains the concept of ore shoots with details.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I was not able to find and grammar or spelling mistakes.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes it is split into clear sections.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no images were added.
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes, definitely.
What are the strengths of the content added? adding a "locations" section that describes where and how you find ore shoots.
How can the content added be improved? content can be improved by adding more detail to what kind of ore shoots can be found, not everyone is a geologist.

Overall the added content was really good, concise and detailed, with great explanations. The citations used are current and from reliable sources.