User:HD1019/sandbox

Gadolinite (mineral)

The article as a whole has limited information, though all that is there is relevant to the mineral. Of the sections currently there, the information under the Characteristics and Name and Discovery headings show promise, catching important findings for those wishing to identify the mineral or who discovered it but can be expanded upon. For example, the explanation of the discovery of gadolinite is interesting but lacks details as to how the scientist isolated the oxide. In contrast, the Uses portion only consists of two sentences, both which do not explain how gadolinite is relevant to human application. Substantial information can be added within those headings and others, including (if any) Compounds and Reactions, Isotopes, and Precautions. Given the lack of data, there is not any information out of date. In addition, more images on the mineral (solely of the mineral and not with another one as seen on website) the scientist who discovered it, and/or applications.

There is some promise in the article structure, with subheadings and information in an appropriate order in the article (ex. Uses coming after Name and Discovery portion), a Table of Contents, and a quick overview of the mineral with key characteristics listed and an image located on the right of the webpage. Despite substantially imbalanced sections, with more content and sections (as suggested above), the article could demonstrate a strong flow of ideas, clarity, and easy to navigate sections.

In terms of tone, the article was neutral, though this may in part because of the lack of content. The views can be underrepresented, particularly in the Uses section, as there is no actual discussion of the industrial, research applications. When adding more content in future, it would be important to maintain neutrality. One way is to write about different applications in equal amounts (if possible) without strong, biased language.

While the article has some references, they are not structured as per Wikipedia’s guidelines (assigning each sentence to the relevant reference as required), nor are they properly formatted (ex. APA, MLA). Furthermore, all the resources pertain to the characteristics of the mineral only, so it is unknown as to where the history and uses information came from. The references that are provided do support the article’s claims. The links of the references are active. However, half of the sources are not reliable, coming from websites that may have their own agenda (www.galleries.com which also sells minerals, and www.mindat.org, run by non-for-profit Hudson Institute for Mineralogy, but both do not specifically list of references that they use). The other sources come from the Handbook of Mineralogy, which specifically lists scientific journal article(s) from which their information come from that should have been explored further rather than simply using the handbook as a source. Thus, most references will need to be replaced with peer-reviewed journal articles primarily and all content added/altered will need to be referenced properly.

The Talk page shows that there has only been one question (concerning conflicting information) posed with a related answer. This demonstrates that there has not been much discussion as to adding and/or improving content. Potential points to discuss on the Talk page are from what source(s) does the information about the Discovery come from or future plans for expanding the article in the Uses section. The topic is part of two WikiProjects: one on Geology, and one on Rocks and minerals, both which grade it to be of Start-Class quality and of mid-importance.