User:Pavneetah/Chonolith/Laurenmacky 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?

Pavneetah

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Pavneetah/Chonolith

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

Chonolith

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

No lead section has been drafted, however I believe that the "overview" section could be condensed to be a lead section. By merging the first and sixth sentences, and maintaining the last sentence of the overview section, it would a concise and clear description of what a chonolith is. Then an additional one or two sentences could briefly describe the later sections on how they are formed and examples.

Content

I think that the addition of the text for each example of chonolith was a great addition that wasn't present in the original Wikipedia page, which had just listed each example. Much of the text in the "overview" and "how they are formed" section is relevant to a chonolith but does not necessarily belong on this page. The overview section focuses mostly on what an igneous intrusion is, rather than what specifically a chonolith is. Although a chonolith is a type of igneous intrusion, there is already a Wikipedia page designated to describing igneous intrusions, and this page should focus solely on how a chonolith is distinguished under that umbrella. The igneous intrusion page should be linked within the first few sentences so that if a reader is unaware of what it is then they can look at that page. I described how this section could be condensed to focus solely on chonolith above in my lead evaluation. Similarly, the how they are formed section describes how igneous intrusions form in general, rather than chonoliths specifically. I would like to know how the formation of a chonolith differs to that of a sill or dyke, to give them the irregular shape. Content that is missing is how chonoliths are often hosting structures to ore deposits like base metal magmatic sulfides and why (sulfide liquation due to interacting to wall). Since there is no discussion on the talk page yet, I suggest starting one up about the changes you have made to the content's page.

Tone and Balance

All of the text is written in a neutral tone, phrases such as "most important" are not used at all. There are no viewpoints taken on a particular topic, which may be due to the fact that there are no controversial topics that tend to be biased. This would be something to watch for if you decide to add text related to mining chonoliths for ore deposits. The draft is well balanced, each heading has an amount of text that is fitting to its topic and no section outweighs another.

Sources and References

The references used are all reliable, they come from scientific journals, all of the links are working and the information matches the text associated with them. There is a diverse spectrum of authors, none are repeated. There is one reference that comes from a website, although it is comes of The Geological Society of London, there is no author on the webpage so I would consider replacing this one. Some of the references are outdated such as Lahee (1961) and Daly (1905), there are likely newer references that cover the same material. The reference Daly (1905) has an error in red text that needs to be resolved by reformatting the date by either adding the day or shortening it to 1905. There is room in the draft for more references to be added. In each of the examples of chonoliths there is only one reference per paragraph, which leaves a lot of information uncited. Similarly, the other sections of stretches of sentences missing sources. A reference that could be used for talking about ore deposits in chonoliths, such as base metal magmatic sulfides is Evans (2018).^[1]

Organization

The draft is easy to read and clear, and I believe that it is written at a level that is accessible to reader. To add make it even more clear, links could be added to other Wikipedia pages such as igneous intrusions, dike, sill, laccolith, platinum group element, dacite, Permo-Triassic boundary and Siberian continental flood basalt. It is well divided into headings that make sense for its topic. For the final submission, I would change the type of heading from Sub-heading 1 to heading to match the page. It is mostly free of grammatical or spelling errors, the main error that sticks out to me is the misspelling of chonolith in the heading "Examples of Chololiths".

Overall Impressions

To sum up, I think that the draft has well laid out sections, it is written in a neutral tone, the content is well balanced and has good quality references. I think a big strength to this text is that is covers content that was missing in the original Wikipedia page, such as how chonoliths are formed and descriptions of chonolith examples. The main weakness to this draft is that some of the content is not relevant to chonoliths, so the main focus of editing this draft should be to hone in on what is important to specifically a chonolith, not an igneous intrusion in general. Here is a list of suggestions that summarize what I said above:

• Add more references
• Change outdated references
• Fix error messages in references
• Remove text that is not relevant
• Add links to other Wikipedia pages
• Maybe add content on ore deposits

References