User:Anne181625/Topaz/MacGuire Roughley Peer Review

General info
Anne181625
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Anne181625/Topaz
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Topaz

Evaluate the drafted changes
LEAD

The lead is concise and offers the basic information on them mineral. The information is mainly about the color but also mentions where it can found, if anything can be added maybe just a sentence saying what the mineralogy classification (I think orthorhombic) is as the minerology section will go into more detail (wiki seems to want some reference to future sections in the lead). I think it would be redundant to get into much more information than that I so I think the lead is solid and effective. The media alongside the lead is very good, a quick access to lots of useful information.

CONTENT

The content that has been added is all relevant to the topic. The largest contributions are in the gem stone and mineralogy and the are quite well rounded. Also great touching on the lower quality topaz, with a mineral known for its beauty  it good to  talk about the less known aspect like its use in abrasion. Also, like most gem stones and pretty minerals, I think it's great you mention how it is produced synthetically. The gemstone section is concise and all of the information is neutral and properly cited. Similarly the mineralogy section has great information, I like the media as well as mineralogy can be hard to grasp with out diagrams. All of the information seems up to date, most of the citations seem to be 2000 and newer, some of the publications are old but I've found that is common when looking into mineralogy. Maybe consider a section on the extraction or collection of topaz.

TONE AND BALANCE

The tone stays quite consistent and an overall neutral communication is carried. With some of the beliefs and dedications of the widely known mineral I think it is important to mention them but as you have been doing using words like 'believed' and 'thought' is good to keep the neutral tone. And I think that it is common knowledge that the history, myths, or beliefs of the stone comes down to personal beliefs so not a big deal there. Overall the presentation of the new information is effective and neutral, great job.

SOURCES

Citation appear quite consistently and there are quite a lot of citations which is good. The only sentence I thought could use a citation is this one near the end of the Gemstone section:

"When these compounds are heated to temperatures of 750° to 850°C topaz is formed. Another method uses a combination of amorphous Al2O3, Na2SiF6, and water which is heated to a temperature of 500°C, put under a pressure of 4000 bars and left for 9 days."

with so many numbers I figure its from a publication. Other than that all the new information is accurately cited and the citations all seem to function properly. There's one source about topaz being the gemstone of Texas, an existing sentence and citation,  a bit of an odd website, but I was not expecting to find this but here is a publication all about Topaz and Texas

Bassoo, R., Eames, D., Hardman, M. F., Befus, K., & Sun, Z. (2023). TOPAZ FROM MASON COUNTY, TEXAS. Gems & Gemology, 59(4).

I've found a lot of publications on some of the basic findings of mineralogy tend to be older, but it would be good to continue to add newer citations as well.

ORGANIZATION

The flow of the article is good, and all the sections are split up well, I also think the media is placed is great spots and all media are relevant to the space they are within. I think a mining type section could go well with the localities and occurrence section as it likely touches on the areas or countries where topaz is likely extracted. Overall very good though.

IMAGES AND MEDIA

As mentioned I think the media used so far is great, the mineralogy section especially as crystal lattices can be pretty confusing. I also like the information given in the first media section near the lead is great. I mentioned this on my other peer review but this website has pretty good minerology animations:


 * http://www.minsocam.org/msa/DGTtxt/
 * This website is "mineralogy and Optical Mineralogy" by M. Darby Dyar and Mickey E. Gunter. The text book is not free but the animations are all public - may be useful. Used it a lot for ERTH 2102

Overall I think you have done a great job so far, maybe review some of the existing sections and citations (I have the same issue with some of the existing citations are not the best), but continue the great work the article is easy to read and flows well,  the section are split up correctly and it's coming together quite well.