User:Ol Evene/Pyrrhotite/Vansam823 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
Pyrrhotite
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Pyrrhotite

Peer Review

Hello, Ol Evene here is my review:

Lead

The lead was not worked on. The Lead on the current article is well written, short and to the point with a neutral tone. It could, however, use another citation. Maybe some examples of what it is used for could be added.

Article Body

Structure Subheading

Ol Evene said the structure and magnetic properties subheadings were not changed; however, it looks like the image used in the magnetic properties subheading was moved to the structure one. I agree with the change, the image being placed in structure makes more sense as it is a structure of the mineral.

Identification: Physical Properties

Identification is a new heading with two new subheadings, physical and optical properties. The identification subheading is relevant to the topic and adds a lot of detail to the article.

The 9th reference used is an old looking website (no date) that says it is created by a geologist with a lot of experience; however, it does not fit well as an acceptable source. Perhaps another citations is needed along with this one to back it up.
The second sentence may lack a neutral tone with the use of "may be confused". It could we worded this way: "Pyrrhotite has similar coloring properties as..." this also states why it is similar and why it may be mistaken for the other minerals.
The 2nd and 10th reference are both websites which appears to be the Wikipedia's of minerals, they seems to be a good sources; however, another citations from a book or academic journal may be needed.
- The 10th reference is also just a random page from some document, I would not considered this reliable.
For the Streak, I would maybe include it with the color mention: "pyrite is...color with a greenish black streak...". I don't think the streaks of the other similar minerals need a mention because this page is specific to this mineral and if someone wants that information they can go to those pages. The identification properties are usually specific to each individual mineral and if uncertain the other identification methods should be used to differ between them anyways.

This little paragraph confused me:

"Diagnostic characteristics in hand samples include: brassy/bronze color when paired with a grey/black streak, tabular or hexagonal crystals which show iridescence, subconchoidal fracture, metallic luster, and magnetism." Copied from User:Ol Evene/Pyrrhotite.

It is a long list with a lot of descriptors. Maybe breaking it up into two sentences would make it less confusing.
If not plural: no s with crystals and a s at shows
magnestism to magnetism
missing a citation or two.

Identification: Optical Properties

"Pyrrhotite, and other opaque minerals can be identified optically using a reflected light ore microscope (which contains an upper reflecting polarizing light illuminator)" Copied from User:Ol Evene/Pyrrhotite.

Does this microscope already have it or is it being stated that it needs to have it to identify it. If it already has it I would remove the part with the parentheses and if not perhaps state: "a reflected light ore microscope with a upper reflecting polarizing light illuminator."

"As such, the following optical properties are representative of polished/puck sections under using ore microscopy:" Copied from User:Ol Evene/Pyrrhotite.

under may need to be removed or this sentence just needs to be re-worked.

This section requires more citations, the 13th reference is a reliable source; however, it is the only one used for two paragraphs and is rather old. More citations are also needed for the amount of information.

General Content

The article is not part of Wikipedia's equity gap and it does not address any historically underrepresented populations or topics. All the content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date as mineral properties do not usually change much overtime. What was added seems to be complete, there are other identifying properties; however, the author is still drafting.

Tone and Balance

All additions in the draft except for maybe that one part I mentioned above in the physical properties appears to have a neutral tone. There is no biased claims, overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints, and no attempts to persuade. It stays factual and to the point.

The balance of the two added sections are both about the same length showing equal importance. They seem to be the right size for the content it is adding to the article, I am assuming other properties will be added as well making the identification section longer. The only section which will need to be displaced is the magnetic properties, it may be added as a separate identification subsection, as a subsection under physical properties, or just incorporated into physical properties.

Sources and References

More reliable sources are needed, as in scholarly journals and books. Most of the references are from websites, some of the websites seem reliable; however, a secondary citation with a reliable source should be added. The source can also be more up to date or the older one can be backed up with more recent one. Everything is cited, however, except for the diagnostic characteristics. Perhaps they are notes or they are still being drafted. Also, all the links for the new material works.

Organization/Clarity

Overall the draft version has a well organized layout and is clear. I had no problems following along and understanding the content. It is simple and to the point with no details or viewpoints bogging it down. There appears to be very little grammar and spelling mistakes. The magnetic properties heading may be added as a subheading under physical properties. It seems to be an important characteristic to this mineral in where it can have a whole subsection. If it is not, the details could be further mixed into the physical properties.

Images and Media

The image used in the magnetic properties was placed into the structures section which I also think is a better location for it. It is well captioned and follows Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Maybe switching the image to the right side would be more visually appealing as the info box is also on the same side and it may help with the reading flow. However, switching the images sides as the you read through the article can also look more appealing.

Overall impressions

Overall the additions to the article have lengthened it with useful well written information. It has improved its quality. It is well written and organized well. The only area of improvement needed is the references used and the lack of secondary citations. Otherwise it is well done. Good job!