This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? Cato's Kaidun meteorite article username: MJCato
- Link to draft you're reviewing: here
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead effectively introduces the meteorite.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the Lead is nice and short but could possibly use an addition sentence elaborating on the contents of the article.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the Lead describes the fall of the meteorite while the body discusses the composition and possible origins. This article does not need to be extensively lengthy and I think using the Lead to note the fall is appropriate.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is clear and concise. The details provided convey important information about the fall of the meteorite at the top of the article.
The Lead is very good. My only recommendation would be to add a sentence mentioning the composition and origin highlights.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The information presented in this article is consistently straightforward and to the point.
- Is the content added up-to-date? The information appears up-to-date to include relevant remarks from recent scientific contributions along with the physical characterization of the Kaidun meteorite.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content present belongs and pertains to the topic.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't think so.
The contents of the article are well written and convey important information effectively. The article is short but conveys the needed material well. Additional paragraphs could be added to expand on the discussion of the origin of the meteorite as long as it does not compromise the existing article. Overall, this article is clear and conveys the most important information pertaining to the Kaidun meteorite.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes, the article considers the multiple sides of the discussion of the meteorite's origin and why questions still remain.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the tone is neutral and unbiased. The article neutrality is very well done.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't believe so. Maybe there could be more discussion on non-Phobos parent body origin hypotheses if any exist.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article walks the reader through the physical characteristics of the meteorite and why a Phobos parent body origin is the current favored hypothesis in the literature.
The tone and balance of this article is well executed.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The "composition" section does not have any references. Other than that, the article is well cited.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I believe so.
- Are the sources current? Yes.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are not all from one author and seem to reflect a diverse spectrum of authors.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.
The current citations are up-to-date and compliment the article. If additional sources are available, incorporating them could strengthen the validity of the article. The composition section needs at least one reference.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, this is a strength of the article as it stands.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I caught.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is organized in a very approachable structure.
Very well done. If more information or sources are added, I would recommend working within this current framework.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No but if there is an image of the meteorite that could be used here, I would recommend incorporating it into the article.
- Are images well-captioned? n/a
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a
Add a picture!
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. (I think this is a new article)
- 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, this article discusses a unique meteorite with a possible Phobos origin, which is notable to this community and planetary science in general.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources are good but more would be better.
- 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? Yes, the infobox and section organization conveys important information coherently and concisely.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it links many appropriate articles.
This article would be a beneficial addition to the meteorite information in Wikipedia.
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? This article is complete as is. If additional information is added, it should build on the current framework.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The organization and presentation of the Kaidun meteorite in this article makes the information about the meteorite composition and origin very digestible.
- How can the content added be improved? My only recommendations would be to add more summarizing information in the Lead and add more citations, especially in the composition section. Also add an image!
Overall this article is a very strong start!
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? Cato's Kaidun meteorite article username: MJCato
- Link to draft you're reviewing: here
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead effectively introduces the meteorite.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the Lead is nice and short but could possibly use an addition sentence elaborating on the contents of the article.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the Lead describes the fall of the meteorite while the body discusses the composition and possible origins. This article does not need to be extensively lengthy and I think using the Lead to note the fall is appropriate.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is clear and concise. The details provided convey important information about the fall of the meteorite at the top of the article.
The Lead is very good. My only recommendation would be to add a sentence mentioning the composition and origin highlights.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The information presented in this article is consistently straightforward and to the point.
- Is the content added up-to-date? The information appears up-to-date to include relevant remarks from recent scientific contributions along with the physical characterization of the Kaidun meteorite.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content present belongs and pertains to the topic.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't think so.
The contents of the article are well written and convey important information effectively. The article is short but conveys the needed material well. Additional paragraphs could be added to expand on the discussion of the origin of the meteorite as long as it does not compromise the existing article. Overall, this article is clear and conveys the most important information pertaining to the Kaidun meteorite.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes, the article considers the multiple sides of the discussion of the meteorite's origin and why questions still remain.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the tone is neutral and unbiased. The article neutrality is very well done.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't believe so. Maybe there could be more discussion on non-Phobos parent body origin hypotheses if any exist.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article walks the reader through the physical characteristics of the meteorite and why a Phobos parent body origin is the current favored hypothesis in the literature.
The tone and balance of this article is well executed.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The "composition" section does not have any references. Other than that, the article is well cited.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I believe so.
- Are the sources current? Yes.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are not all from one author and seem to reflect a diverse spectrum of authors.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.
The current citations are up-to-date and compliment the article. If additional sources are available, incorporating them could strengthen the validity of the article. The composition section needs at least one reference.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, this is a strength of the article as it stands.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I caught.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is organized in a very approachable structure.
Very well done. If more information or sources are added, I would recommend working within this current framework.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No but if there is an image of the meteorite that could be used here, I would recommend incorporating it into the article.
- Are images well-captioned? n/a
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a
Add a picture!
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. (I think this is a new article)
- 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, this article discusses a unique meteorite with a possible Phobos origin, which is notable to this community and planetary science in general.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources are good but more would be better.
- 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? Yes, the infobox and section organization conveys important information coherently and concisely.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it links many appropriate articles.
This article would be a beneficial addition to the meteorite information in Wikipedia.
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? This article is complete as is. If additional information is added, it should build on the current framework.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The organization and presentation of the Kaidun meteorite in this article makes the information about the meteorite composition and origin very digestible.
- How can the content added be improved? My only recommendations would be to add more summarizing information in the Lead and add more citations, especially in the composition section. Also add an image!
Overall this article is a very strong start!