User:Conklincjc1/Tin Mountain Pegmatite/Scarlett016 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Conklincjc1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Conklincjc1/sandbox


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

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It doesn't mention all the major sections but it does give a brief idea of what the subject is.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Kind of, I think you could maybe have a section in the Formation History that talks about how the Harney Peak Granite came to be.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, everything in this article is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I noticed some sources were as old as 1963, but it seems that all the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * "Vertical zoning in pegmatites is not uncommon" I think it would be really interesting if you elaborated a little more on what exactly vertical zoning is and why it's seen in pegmatites.
 * "thought to mimic the crystallization behavior of the major alkali groups." Here would be a really great place to talk about what specific crystallization behavior is seen in the pegmatite that mimics alkali groups, and you could also talk about how it can be recognized, etc.
 * You could also have a little section on the Tin Mountain Mine! It doesn't seem to be in business anymore, but I found a few sources that have some information about it. They aren't peer-reviewed scientific articles, but I bet they could still give you a few talking points:
 * https://westernmininghistory.com/mine_detail/10104256/
 * https://thediggings.com/mines/usgs10226404
 * https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/show-mrds.php?dep_id=10104256
 * I mentioned this earlier, but I think for your Formation History section it would be helpful to talk about the whole area (and decide what "whole area" means to you - like are we talkin more details about the Black Hills overall orrrr just this specific section where you can find the Tin Mountain Pegmatite). See if you can find some more information about the Harney Peak Granite and include that, and maybe some information about the Mayo Formation. I would be really interested to know not only the history of the Tin Mountain Pegmatite, but also how it fits into the formation of the rest of the area. What happened there? How did it come to be?

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, not that I could see.
 * 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, all the information has a source attached. However, I would see if you can find a way to cut down on how many times you reference a source so the list isn't so long. If all the information in a paragraph can be drawn from the same source, I learned that it's appropriate to put the source at the end of the paragraph instead of after each sentence. I'm sure you're also used to citing every single sentence like we do in research papers (love that lol), but I don't think you have to on Wikipedia as long as they all come from the same source.
 * 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? Yes, the sources are pretty thorough. They're peer-reviewed and there isn't much information (if any at all) on this topic available anywhere other than articles like this.
 * Are the sources current? Some of the sources are current and some are as old as 1963.
 * 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.) I think the sources you used are great, since you used peer-reviewed articles and papers instead of random websites.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The link I clicked in the references worked, but there was a paywall so I couldn't access the article without trying to find it in the school library.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * "The Tin Mountain pegmatite, an offshoot of the Harney Peak Granite, intrudes into the Mayo Formation, an early Proterozoic quartz-mica schist, as well as a small amphibolite unit" I may be just misunderstanding, but are you saying the Tin Mountain Pegmatite intrudes into the Mayo Formation (which is an early Proterozoic quartz-mica schist) AND also intrudes into a separate small amphibolite unit? Or are you saying that the Mayo Formation, which the Tin Mountain Pegmatite intrudes into, is both an early Proterozoic quartz-mica schist and a small amphibolite unit? (If that makes sense, basically what exactly is the small amphibolite unit and what is its relation to the other units?)
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not that I could see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it's broken down into sections that make sense and are relevant to the topic.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the image featured is a helpful visual but I think it would do your article good to have at least one more image. See if you can find an image you like of the actual Tin Mountain Pegmatite or maybe a hand sample of it, if possible. I think that would be really cool.
 * Are images well-captioned? The image in the article is well-captioned, but is it supposed to say Walker (1986 a) instead of just Walker (1986)?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, so far they do.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, I like where you put the diagram showing the structure of the pegmatite. It fits really well with where the article is at.

For New Articles Only

 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes, I can see you have multiple scientific papers/journals about this subject in your references.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is pretty decent, but I would see if you can find at least one more, especially for the "Structure" section.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, it does not, and it might be helpful to add some links within your article. For example, you could put a hyperlink for the Laramide orogeny when you mention it during the formation history section. Also the Black Hills could have a hyperlink, too. (When I put those hyperlinks in the previous sentence, I literally just found the wikipedia article for it and then copied the URL and pasted it, and it automatically made the hyperlink for me!)