User:Eblokland/Columbite/Brettellier Peer Review

General info
Eblokland
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Eblokland/Columbite
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Columbite

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

I think the lead paragraphs are quite well-written. They do a great job of briefly discussing the many different topics that are covered later in the article. I also think the sentences you added specifically do a good job at introducing the subjects you added to the article without getting too caught up in the details of those subjects.

As a criticism, I would say the lead paragraphs could be condensed a little bit. I think there's a lot of great information in there but it gets a little too caught up on specific examples. To be more specific, I feel that where all the different members of the columbite group are mentioned could perhaps be moved down into their own section and discussed more in-depth there. As I said before, I really like the sentences you added to the lead paragraphs, I just feel that the original lead paragraph could use some trimming/organization.

Content

I love the content you added to this article. It's very simple to read and understand while simultaneously being very informative and descriptive. I also really like the different subjects you added because they're all vastly different and yet remain on-topic and are extremely beneficial to the article.

The formation subject is very interesting and well explained. I was thinking this could be a good place to include those other members of the columbite group and exactly how/why they form.

I was also thinking, for some more content to add, you could include the utility of columbite and it's different members. This could be it's own section entirely but then would also allow you to further expand on your current sections. For example, say columbite could be recycled/re-used, what does that process look like, what are the environmental impacts of that. Additionally you could talk about what process(es) need to be done for columbite to become useful if that's the case, this is another great spot to again talk about the environmental impact of this/these process(es). You could also use both those subjects I mentioned to expand on the history section of the article.

Tone and Balance

I think your article is very neutral and un-biased. Everything you mention is mostly fact and virtually every claim you make has a reputable source to go along with it. Because of this, you don't leave much room for any personal tone/bias to show in the article which is great! Even with the environmental impact section which can easily introduce biases, you wrote about it from a very neutral perspective and made sure to write about all-parties that are involved, not just the most relevant ones.

Sources and References

Your sources are great! All the links in your references work and take me directly to the source. All of your sources are very up-to-date with the oldest one being from 2011 if I'm not mistaken. On top of that, they're all scholarly/peer-reviewed sources and they come from unbiased publishers as well.

You also did a great job of making sure that little to no claims were left un-cited in your article.

Organization

As previously mentioned, everything is very well-written and concise while still including lots of information about columbite. I also like how the sections you wrote are formatted with formation being 1st, environmental impact being 2nd and mineral dating being 3rd. To me it's a very logical flow of information starting with more broad information and getting more specific as you continue on in the article.

For some criticism, I feel that the history section could be better organized to go along with the flow of sections that I previously mentioned. If you were to make some additions to the history section like I previously mentioned then I have no issues with history being last but as it stands, it's quite a short historical recap of columbite so I believe it could be a nice quick read for the beginning of the article body.

On top of that, I'll rewrite here what I wrote in my review of the lead section. I feel that there are some sections of the lead article that get pretty detailed and so, it may be beneficial to move them to a different part of the article, probably in the article body somewhere.

Images and Media

I like the image that's used in the main article to show the readers what a typical columbite mineral would look like. That being said, since there are so many different variations of columbite depending on the environment around it during formation, it could be very interesting and informative to add more pictures of the different variations so the reader can compare them. Additionally, since columbite and tantalite are so closely related, it could be very helpful and informative for readers to have a visual comparison of those two so they can see how closely related they are for themselves.