User:Cebeck/Magmatic water/Jasmineburke Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cebeck


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cebeck/Magmatic water


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I see this user has added information to the introduction and all other sections. An entire "composition" category and subsections was added to the page. The revised introduction provides a great overview of the topic. Much of the information in the introduction needs a citation and the Cl needs to include the negative charge or be written out (--Cl-). Spells out VOC first time of use before using acronym. The information included in the "composition" section is well-written, relevant, and thoroughly sourced. Water in silicate melts section: reworded to make easier to read and supplementary equation included. Stable isotope data section: reworded to increase readability.

Overall, these edits really increased to quality of this article in my opinion. Not only did the user transform the pervious information, so it was more readable and structured, but they added a large section of relevant information. Besides the intro, the information is accurately and thoroughly cited. One image was added. Maybe more would be helpful.