User:ChloejWard/Hornblende/WanderingAurora Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ChloejWard


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChloejWard/Hornblende?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: Contributions were made to the lead section, however the added words did not reflect the added Uses of hornblende section. I understand that this section is underdeveloped as it wasn't necessary for the sake of the first draft, but I think it could benefit from future contributions.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: The original article's lead section was clear and concise. Information such as introducing the article's sections to inform the reader on the scope of the article would be a good future contribution. I noticed that you changed some of the wording of the lead section, for example from "Hornblende minerals are common in igneous and metamorphic rocks." to "Hornblende minerals are common and primarily found in igneous and metamorphic rocks.". I don't think this change was necessary- it feels redundant to include both common and primarily found. I would recommend keeping the language more concise when drafting the rest of your article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: No, the lead section mentions topics that are later discussed. However, the lead does not introduce what is being discussed in the article, for example the sections: Physical Properties, Compositional Variance, Occurrence, or the drafted Uses. I would recommend making this addition.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: The lead is concise in general but once again, I would recommend refraining from adding "fluff" words where not needed as previously mentioned.

Content
Reading over the information, I found the statement "Amphibolites are rocks which consist mainly of amphibole minerals, most abundantly hornblende, although these rocks are rare." questionable. From my metamorphic petrology classes, I was told that amphibolites are one of the most common metamorphic rocks/facies. Additionally, amphibolite also refers to a metamorphic facies, metabasites (meta-igneous) rocks contain hornblende but metapelites (metamorphosed fine-grained sedimentary rocks) do not in moderate pressures/temperatures metamorphism. If you want to discuss amphibolites I think more research has to be done with reliable sources to expand on this topic. Be cautious not to expand on amphibolites too much since there is a Wikipedia page on amphibolite already.
 * I s the content added relevant to the topic?: The new sections, uses of hornblende and physical properties are relevant to the topic. I think including uses of hornblende was a great idea and will enhance the original article. It's also relevant to the course material. I recommend adding more sections, such as the mining of amphibolite or discussing hornblende in a resource context.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?: I cannot comment on this as no sources were provided, I'm not sure where the information came from/when it was originally published. When doing research, I recommend including your citation information in your draft notes right away and to be choosing current papers (I usually aim for at least 2010).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: Rough notes were made for future contributions, however none of the content drafted has a completed paragraph. Although having an outline is great to formulate your ideas, I think focusing your time on completing one paragraph for a section would have been helpful. Moreover, citations must be added as there are no sources in the sandbox draft. Wikipedia said everything in the sandbox must also follow citation and plagiarism guidelines, I highly recommend fixing this as soon as possible. The information you contributed in the Physical Properties section is a bit repetitive as it is already listed on the original article. I would contribute more information in this section to add information that is not already there.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?/Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: Yes, the information added was neutral. For example, the neutrality of "Hornblende has been used to estimate the depth of crystallization of plutonic rocks" is great and you should continue to write your article in this tone. However, without proper citations, it is difficult to know if the information came from an unbiased, reliable source.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: Overall, each of the added sections are underdeveloped and are rough notes. I suggest to focus on one section and create a more in depth paragraph.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: The content does not try to persuade the reader, the language used is direct. However, the lack of citations means I cannot see if the information came from diverse authors who aren't biased themselves.

Sources and References
You did not include any sources. This should be fixed immediately as this is a form of plagiarism. It makes the contributions inherently unreliable. Additionally, others aren't able to see if the information is reliable, if the content accurately reflects the information from the source, if the source is thorough and current. and if it is unbiased and contains studies from a diverse range of authors. When adding your citations, keep all these aspects in mind. Aim for peer reviewed journals, with information from the last decade at least. A great resource that has aided me in creating my articles are textbooks that I get access from Carleton's library. Other than the library, GeoRef-GeoScienceWorld is another great article searching database. I also recommend checking out Science Direct's topic overview page, it gives a brief description of the topic at hand and shows a plethora of abstracts related to that topic. Here is the link to one of these pages that may be of use to you:

Other sources that could be of use:

Welch, Mark D. (2021-01-01), Alderton, David; Elias, Scott A. (eds.), "Amphiboles", Encyclopedia of Geology (Second Edition), Oxford: Academic Press, pp. 297–300, doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-102908-4.00095-3, ISBN 978-0-08-102909-1, retrieved 2023-03-04

Haldar, S. K. (2020-01-01), Haldar, S. K. (ed.), "Chapter 7 - Metamorphic rocks", Introduction to Mineralogy and Petrology (Second Edition), Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 269–289, doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-820585-3.00007-7, ISBN 978-0-12-820585-3, retrieved 2023-03-03

Bucher, Kurt; Frey, Martin (2002), Bucher, Kurt; Frey, Martin (eds.), "Metamorphism of Pelitic Rocks (Metapelites)", Petrogenesis of Metamorphic Rocks, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 126–127, doi:10.1007/978-3-662-04914-3_7, ISBN 978-3-662-04914-3, retrieved 2023-03-03

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article draft is clear, easy to read, and generally concise but I would ensure every word enhances the sentence and to be cautious of repeating synonymous words when describing something. For example, the previously mentioned "common and primarily found" sentence. Overall, the language is accessible and I believe the targeted wide audience would be able to understand the information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: The content added does have spelling and grammar errors. "Hornblende is identified most easily by it's colour(...)" should say its colour. Another spelling error was the word cleavages- you wrote "clevages". The sentence "It is found in the metamorphic rocks gneiss and schist." is a bit awkward. I recommend rephrasing it to say "It is found in gneiss and schist metamorphic rocks".
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: The use of headings is good, it helps break down the information and makes it easy to read. However, the introduction/lead heading is not in the same format as the other headings. I would also suggest not to write "Uses of Hornblende" and instead just write "Uses" as your header. The reader knows the article is about Hornblende, and doing this to other headings as well could make it very repetitive. The "Article Body" heading is vague, a new section should be made with a clear heading expressing what the information is about.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: Overall, I would say the overall quality of the article has not been improved. The information contributed is unreliable, unnecessary edits to the original lead were made, and none of the sections have been explored in depth. Although you are on the right track, before this can move to Wikipedia, a lot of changes must be made- primarily the addition of citations.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content was clearly divided into easy to follow sections. I also liked the simple language used that ensures a wide audience can understand the information.
 * How can the content added be improved?: You could add text links to further enhance the reading experience of your article. For example: "It is found in the metamorphic rocks gneiss and schist." Furthermore, images could greatly improve your article. An amphibolite picture would enhance your article. The main take aways are to cite your information, focus on adding new information, keeping language concise in both the text and headers, and to be mindful of grammatical/spelling errors.