User:Laurenmacky/Sphalerite/LisaTruong3 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.

Whose work are you reviewing?

LaurenMacky

Link to draft you're reviewing

Sphalerite draft

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

Sphalerite Wikipedia article

Lead

The lead section is well-written and concise; does not include any unnecessary information. The lead section has been updated with new content from this draft; the lead section includes an introductory sentence which explains concisely what sphalerite is and what minerals sphalerite can be found in. However, the lead does not include a brief description of the article’s major sections. For example, on the official Wikipedia article for sphalerite, other contents such as economic importance and occurrences of sphalerite is not mentioned in the lead section (both in the draft and in the official Wikipedia article). The student has included information that was not present in the article. For example, additional minerals associated with sphalerite, such as rhodochrosite and fluorite, were included. Although, most of the lead section in this draft is very similar to the lead section in the official Wikipedia article.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic, up-to-date, and is well-written. All of the content is relevant to their designated headings and provides a greater depth and completeness to the article. For example, the draft includes information regarding the crystal habit and structure, and optical properties of sphalerite, which was lacking in the official Wikipedia article. The content does address the equity gap that was present in the Wikipedia article. For instance, additional information, such as the occurrences and uses of sphalerite (e.g. zinc, brass, and others), were included in the draft. Another topic that could have been covered is how sphalerite is formed and geological occurrences of these minerals. For example, does sphalerite form in mid-ocean ridges, after volcanism, in continental crust, or during convergences of plate boundaries? The link I have provided might be of assistance when answering that question.

Tone and Balance

The added content in this draft was neutral. There were no claims or statements that appeared heavily biased; all of the information appears to represent factual statements from mineral databases and peer-reviewed articles. The added content does not attempt to persuade the reader to favour one view over another.

Sources and References

All added content was properly cited and each paragraph includes information from multiple sources. Majority of the added content is supported with a reliable secondary source of information, with some information originated from governmental websites. The added content accurately reflects the information from the cited source. Some of the sources included current information, while others were published before the 21st century. However, this is understandable and reasonable as minerals do not change; minerals have definite physical properties, optical properties, etc. Therefore, specific characteristics regarding minerals would not typically change. All sections include sources from a diverse range of peer-reviewed articles and other sources. Additionally, all links work and correlates to the relevant section. A citation that could be removed is located in the “Crystal habit and structure” section. In the paragraph where it is written “Cadmium can replace up to 1% of zinc and manganese is generally found in sphalerite with high iron abundances. Sulfur in the anion position can be substituted for by selenium and tellurium.”, the first citation can be remove at the following sentence is also cited from the same source.

Organization

The content is well-written, easy to comprehend, and concisely describes information from multiple sources. The added content does not appear to display any grammatical or spelling errors. Furthermore, the added content is well-organized; all of the added information is relevant and placed under the related headings.

Images and Media

In the draft, no images or media were included. However, this is reasonable as Wikipedia's standard for uploading images and media from external sources is strict and can be considered as plagiarism if the images/media are not altered in some form. Also, many images of sphalerite and its crystal structure are presented in the official Wikipedia article. Thus, it is unnecessary for additional images.

Talk Page Discussion

Previously, there were no messages on the “Talk Page” of this draft. However, I recently written a message in the talk page (not feedback related as this evaluation provides an in-depth review on the student draft) on how the student did an excellent job on their draft. A point that I would like to see discussed is geological occurrences and requirements for the formation of sphalerite. Although both the draft and the official Wikipedia article discusses the countries that sphalerite is found in, there is little to no mention of how sphalerite is formed.

Overall Impressions

To conclude, the content added will improve the overall quality of the article. This is because the added content provides a greater depth of information to areas in the article with minimum content about a topic. For example, the official Wikipedia article briefly mentions optical properties of sphalerite, while the students added greater context to this topic in their draft. The strength of this draft includes being well-formatted, well-written, easy to comprehend, and lack of grammatical and spelling errors. Also, each paragraph contains information from various reliable sources and were properly cited and referenced. An improvement for the draft would be to have fewer repeated terms linked to Wikipedia articles. To elaborate, according to Wikipedia guidelines, generally, a link to a specific term only appears once in the article, usually when that specific term is first mentioned. In the student’s draft, terms such as “galena”, “gallium”, “germanium”, and “indium”, were linked more than once.