User:Catherinepeshek/Eclogite/Hamsquirrel Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Catherinepeshek


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherinepeshek/Eclogite?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello, Catherine! Good choice to add more detail to a section that was lacking. Here is my peer review. I've copied the relevant questions from the checklist in italics, and my responses are in bold:

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant and brings greater detail to the existing stub of a section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Many of the references are from quite long ago, in the 60s through 80s. Some of the references are more current, including a very recent one from 2017. I think, because this is a geology topic, it's not as big of a concern to include older references since not much is likely to change over time.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I haven't noticed a problem with this, but make sure to link terms that have not already been linked previously in the article (for example, it seems xenolith is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, so at your first mention, add it as a link to the Wikipedia article on Xenoliths).

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes. It mentions a debate but has no bias toward either side.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. It comes from papers and scientific journals.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They seem to be thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Many of them are from the 60s to 80s, but there are some new ones from the 2000s, including one from 2017. I don't think geology is a field that changes drastically with time so I don't see this as an issue.
 * 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.) No, as these are already peer-reviewed articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The language is a little technical but that's to be expected from a Wikipedia article. This can be aided by making sure certain terms link back to Wikipedia articles if they haven't already done so elsewhere on the page.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I've noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Definitely! The section on the Origin of Eclogites was a mere stub previously and did not provide much in-depth information on their origins.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It goes into detail about the various types of Eclogites--Groups A, B, and C--and their descriptions as well as their origins as much as can be known.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would like to see more detail in paragraph 3 (regarding the debate on the origin of eclogite xenoliths). What is the evidence both for and against mantle vs. surface derived?