User:Cleca9159/Clinopyroxene thermobarometry/Dclark57 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cleca9159


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cleca9159/Clinopyroxene_thermobarometry&action=edit
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Clinopyroxene thermobarometry

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.)

Lead
Lead paragraph has been update to reflect new content and is SO much better worded than the original article. Introductory sentence is concise and clearly describes topic. Paragraph includes brief description of major points, and doesn't have anything not present later in the article. Well done!

Structure
Sections are well organized. I'm debating whether the "methods" section should be divided - it seems much longer than other sections, but there's nothing within the section that's not related to methods and should necessarily have its own section. Perhaps dividing it into temperature and pressure? That's totally up to you. Other than that, structure looks great.

Balanced Coverage
Coverage of topics seems well-balanced. Representing "minority opinions" doesn't seem very applicable to this subject, so there's no need for me to talk about that. Each section's length seems necessary for the importance of their topics. From what I can tell all viewpoints are represented accurately, and you didn't try to draw conclusions. Good work!

Neutral Content
Tone seems neutral and well-balanced, but again, this isn't a particularly controversial subject. The only thing I can even begin to think of is phrases like "especially useful" and "particularly helpful", but from what I can tell those are also true statements, so that's entirely up to you.

Reliable Sources
All sources look reliable. Most information is connected to Source 2, but this doesn't seem to necessarily create bias - it's just the most reliable source for this type of information. There aren't any unsourced statements that needed sources, and from what I can tell there aren't any incorrectly attributed sources. Well done!

Misc. Notes
I genuinely tried to poke holes where I could and give you tips, but the article is honestly very well written and I couldn't find any pressing issues with it - just small stuff. Also, I was worried that you had mistyped albite and was laughing hard for a minute or two, but it turns out analbite is a real thing, so I guess the joke's on me.

Overall, great work! This belongs on Wikipedia.