User:Millie Deroy/Aquamarine (gem)/Sam ERTH 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?

Millie Deroy

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Millie%20Deroy/Aquamarine_%28gem%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

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

Aquamarine (gem)

Lead

The lead paragraph for the sandbox has not been changed much so far. It is similar to the original, a good overview but perhaps lacking a little more detail. It also does not include all the information that is going to be discussed in the article. The introductory sentence is not bad - but not everyone will know what beryl is, maybe say gemstone or mineral, and then mention it is part of the beryl group. As mentioned before, the lead does not include all the sections/major headlines discussed in the article, so adding a little more information might make it a more solid lead section. The lead does include some information that it is not mentioned again in the article. Maybe mention "maxixe" again in the article, and go into a little more detail if it is an important component of the gemstone. The Lead is relatively concise, not too detailed, and a little short. A little more information may be helpful.

Content

There has been a few new contributions and I noticed new citations for the statements that did not have any before, and these are relevant to the topic and relatively up to date, (one being from the year 2022). A lot has not been added yet, so I would say some content is missing, a few other sections might be helpful in making the article more informative. Check out this source: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ijsrst.com/paper/4979.pdf, it has a some good information on the gemstone, and goes into detail about a few countries relation to it. A bunch of countries are mentioned in the "occurrence" section of the article, but it is just a list and does not have any other information, this source might help with that. It does not really address historically underrepresented populations, other than a few underrepresented countries briefly mentioned.

Tone and Balance

The (original) article is a little biased. There is an image of Queen Elizabeth, and mention of how the Romans and Chinese used the gem, but other countries are just brushed away and listed. The notable examples should be a little more diverse, adding on to this table would be helpful. The view points of other parts of the world are underrepresented. The content does not seem to sway the reader in one direction or the other, as this article is not a subjective article, but it should include a little more diversity to not seem limited.

Sources and References

The first sentence in the lead section is missing a citation. A few references have been changed and replaced with other sources, but have similar content. The new references are relative and the links all work. Some of them are a little old, (2003) but this topic isn't one that changes often, so it is not a big deal. Going by the names of some of the authors, I assume there is a bit of diversity in the references (reference 1 in the second list of sources.) The source list is good - new information from them should be added to the article, it is a little short and vague as of now. Check out Omni Carleton if you want to find some peer reviewed articles on the topic, it is where I found the source I linked on the "content" section of this review. The sources do reflect the content expressed in the article (such as the information about the hardness scale). '

Organization

The writing is good, no major spelling and grammatical errors. Perhaps add an appendix to outline some of the more complicated words for readers to refer to - might be helpful. The sections are organized and separated, though more sections should be added, and some sections have very limited information.

Images and Media

It seems like no new images and media have been added yet.

Overall Impressions

So far the article has been edited and the wording has changed and improved, content has been added but not a large amount as of yet - therefore the article is not that much more complete, but the writing is better. A few sentences have been added in some of the sections (such in the "in culture" section) that had interesting and relevant information followed by a reliable source. The new content added in the Occurrence section was also good, but more information could be added to this section.