User:Jiinjung/Magnetic Field of Mars/Cpnoll 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?

I am reviewing Jiinjung's first draft of their article on Mars' magnetic field.

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Jiinjung/Magnetic Field of Mars

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

N/A

Evaluate the drafted changes

Magnetic Field of Mars Article Grading Table
Topic: Magnetic Field of Mars		Author: Jiinjung		Reviewer: Cpnoll

	Grade:	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
1. Lead Section	Introductory sentence	✅
	Summary				✅
	Content	✅
2. Article	Organization		✅
	Content	✅
	Balance	✅
	Tone	✅
	Images	✅
3. References	Citations	✅
	Sources	✅
	Completeness	✅
4. New Article	Coverage	✅
	Article Body	✅

Detailed feedback

1) Were the basic sections adequate? If not, what is missing?

Yes! The basic sections were adequate and covered the material appropriately.

2) Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text?

Yes! Subheadings were used effectively to compartmentalize the article.

3) Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow?

Yes! I currently can't think of a better way to organize your article.

4) Did the writer adequately summarize and discuss the topic? Explain.

Yes, you did. However, I have two general suggestions:

Wikipedia suggests that the lead section has a comprehensive summary of the material to follow. Your current lead doesn't currently have a strong summary section, which is why I marked it as "Poor" on the rubric above (see the explanation on the ReviewInstructions2022 rubric). I believe your current lead section serves its purpose, but it may be worthwhile to more explicitly summarize your main points in the lead section.
Throughout your article, phrases such as "shock events" and "dike intrusions" go without a link to another Wikipedia article and go without an explanation. I would suggest you read through your article again and explain scientific terms by linking to other Wikipedia articles like this or explicitly detailing the meaning of scientific phrases that lack a Wikipedia article. That way, your article will be more accessible to those who are less knowledgeable in this field.

5) Did the writer comprehensively cover appropriate materials available from the standard sources? If no, what's missing?

Yes! The sources references are reputable and you seem to cover all the bases relating to this topic.

6) Did the writer cite sources adequately and appropriately? Note any incorrect formatting.

Yep! No issues to report.

7) Were all the citations in the text listed in the References section? Note any discrepancies.

Yep! No issues to report.

8) Were there any grammatical or spelling problems?

There were a few grammatical and spelling mistakes here and there. I'll focus on this issue more significantly in the next round of peer review, but it wouldn't hurt if you looked over your article again to spot and fix the few grammatical and spelling errors present.

9) Was the writer's writing style clear? Were the paragraphs and sentences cohesive?

Yes! No noticeable issues to report.