User:Ol Evene/Pyrrhotite/Jushe1234 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?

Ol Evene

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ol%20Evene/Pyrrhotite?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Pyrrhotite

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added. But it does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, although the lead only includes a brief description of the magnetism subsection and doesn't describe the other subsections. This results in a concise lead with a strong introductory sentence, but the lead may only be concise because it doesn't describe all the article's major sections. Therefore, the lead should be updated to include the new content and include a brief description of the missing major subsections.

Content

The added content is relevant as the physical and optical properties are important to identifying pyrrhotite, which has many applications academically and in industry. The content is up-to-date, even though most of the sources are from 2001, but they contain information about common minerals streak, which is well defined knowledge. The sources that provide information on pyrrhotite properties are up-to-date as the sources are from 2020. All the expected content is in the writing; optical and physical properties are widely accepted as the two ways of defining mineral properties in a geological context.

Tone and Balance

The added content is neutral, and there is no position available to be biased, with no attempt in the writing to persuade a reader in one way or another. The content covers two methods of identifying the mineral pyrrhotite; both methods are explained in the same amount of detail, they are concise and comprehensive. The writing makes no attempt to persuade the reader that one method is better than the other, resulting in a balance of representation for the two methods.

Sources and References

The sources are backed up by reliable sources, as most are from a series of textbooks on mineralogy, and the other is an article that was written from two peer-reviewed sources. Citation 9 in the sandbox is a source of a website article; it may be better to directly read and reference the sources used to write said article rather than the website (found below).

Glossary of Geology, Fifth Edition (revised): edited by Klaus K.E. Neuendorf, James P. Mehl, Jr., and Julia A. Jackson, published by the American Geosciences Institute.

Pyrrhotite Distribution in the Conterminous United States, 2020: by Jeffrey L. Mauk, Thomas C. Crafford, John D. Horton, Carma A. San Juan, and Gilpin R. Robinson Jr.; United States Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 2020–3017, March 2020).

Furthermore, citations 10 through 12 are citations of pdf files taken from a series of textbook volumes; these citations have no reference to the author, just the publisher. I would suggest using a proper citation in addition to attaching the pdf file. The format recommended by the website handbookofmineralogy.org who published the pdf pages, recommends the following for citing the online pdf pages:

John W. Anthony, Richard A. Bideaux, Kenneth W. Bladh, and Monte C. Nichols, Eds., Handbook of Mineralogy, Mineralogical Society of America, Chantilly, VA 20151-1110, USA. http://www.handbookofmineralogy.org/.

The references accurately reflect what the cited articles said. The sources themselves are pretty dated, but considering the content that they cover, the information is still correct and usable today. The content covers the physical and optical properties of minerals, which have been well defined for many decades.

Organization

The content is clear and well organized. Both methods are concisely described and end with the important identification characteristics. The writing flows well and gives a good basic understanding of the topic.

In terms of grammar, the content is missing grammatical articles and some commas. It would be a good idea to go over the writing and edit for grammatical mistakes.