User:Alexpope01/Silver mining/Sarahbrown5 Peer Review

General info
Alexpope01
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Alexpope01/Silver mining
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Silver mining

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The current does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes silver mining, however, it is very short and has little to no detail about what is to come in the rest of the article/any description of the article's major sections. The current lead does also include a fact about silver mining that is not present in the main body of the article, however due to the nature of this fact I believe it can be treated as a fact that introduces the reader to silver mining and does not necessarily need to be expanded upon further throughout the article. With that being said the lead should still be updated to reflect the major sections present throughout the article, as well as the information that has been added.

Content:

All the content added is relevant to the topic of silver mining, as well it adds a layer of detail that is important in fully understanding the different aspects of silver mining. The content may be up to date given the available literature, however there is most likely newer more accurate information available on the topic. The current article and the addition also do not obviously have missing parts and/or content that does not belong within the article. This article, to my knowledge, does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and/or address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance:

The content added is neutral, and in my opinion there does not seem to be any claims which appear heavily biased towards a particular position. I believe the information about silver mining is fairly and proportionately covered given the available literature on the topic, as well there does not seem to be any viewpoints which are specifically overrepresented or underrepresented. I also do not believe that the content added attempts to persuade the reader in favour of one position and/or away from another in any way. this is executed particularly well when discussing the main techniques to process silver scraps, the facts are stated simple and clearly without providing any conclusions which are not backed up by a reliable secondary source.

Sources and References:

Although all the content added is backed up by reliable secondary sources, reflects well what is discussed within the provided sources, and provides easy access to the sources with live links, I can be almost certain that these specific sources are not a thorough representation of the available literature on the topic of silver mining given that they are all over 20 years old. As well, the sources provided are not necessarily from a diverse spectrum of authors and/or include historically marginalized individuals, but they are not written by the same author meaning that there should be not obvious author bias, and may potentially be presenting the best information available on the topic of silver mining. One source I would consider including is "silver recovery aqueous techniques from diverse sources: Hydrometallurgy in recycling" by S. Syed (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956053X1630054X?casa_token=qk1NxE1CuS4AAAAA:SHc5Z-GENSGrJUn6vj6ep1Gb-eEAOqhUkjfq0-PIBkD9z7AJ-VVuyzoXKHhGhCC8VuuaKH1hO9X-), because I believe it could potentially provide a more nuanced perspective and more recent information on silver mining as it was published in 2016.

Organization:

In my opinion, all the content added to concise, clear, and easy to read, overall making it a well written addition to the article. As well, the content added does not, to my knowledge have any grammatical or spelling errors. With the being said, since the entire article was not copied into the sandbox, I cannot accurately say whether to not the content added is well organized and/or how it flow with the rest of the article, because I am not sure where exactly in the article the additions will be presented. However, if the content added is put at the end of the current article I believe it would be well organized and flow well with the other main sections of the article.

Overall impressions:

The content added has definitely contributed to the completeness of the article as whole. The concept of silver scrap processing is a great addition to the article and the addition is written and easy to understand. It also provides valuable information which was otherwise missing from the current version of the article. The content added could be improved by pulling from more than the two sources provided. Specifically, in the silver scrap processing sections that was added, considering perspectives and information from other sources than the one provided would create a more thorough and actuate addition to the article. Overall this is a great addition to the article with only minor edits/additions which should be reviewed.