User:Jbkel/Non-renewable resource/Cushing, D.W Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info
Jbkel

https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Jbkel

Lead
In this case, the Lead does not require an update or further explanation, for the work this review concerns was an elaboration of an existing section of the article.

Lead evaluation
As explained, not relevant to this review.

Content
The added content is relevant, and concisely exemplifies a non-renewable resource: Phosphorous. One source is a little dated (i.e. from 2000) however the remaining are within ten years. Content appears mostly relevant to the article, although, the last two remarks seem somewhat out of place (will elaborate below).

Content evaluation
Content is mostly concise and adequately presented.

Tone and Balance
Most of the content is written in the neutral sense. However, the last two sentences favour a position of active management, and the last half appears balanced to persuade the reader. This may conflict with presenting a neutral position (however, this reviewer may be incorrect in regard to this article).

Tone and balance evaluation
The majority of the added piece exhibits relevent tone and balance (remains neutral and passive voiced; presents the strait facts) while the last two points appear to bias towards an active position. Overall, may require some slight revision to the mentioned points but is otherwise appropriate.

Sources and References
The new content is well sourced. Without extensive research, the sources appear to provide reasonable context from within the available literature on this topic. The sources are fairly current although 1/3 is slightly dated but still relevant given the topic. The links themselves all work, but an error message appears for listed dates within the sources. Checked wiki and found that the error was due to incorrect year format (e.g. 2000-11 be changed to 2000) though this does not impact the viability of the source.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are good. Recommend respective years of the sources to be revised.

Organization
Concise, clear, and easy to read, does not contain any grammatical or spelling errors, and mostly reflects the major points of the topic.

Organization evaluation
Good.

Images and Media
Yes, added image adds context, however, it requires a citation (i.e. original source and type of copyright) to fulfil Wikipedia's copyright regulations. To this reviewer, the image is laid out in a visually appealing way.

Images and media evaluation
Decent.

Overall impressions
The added content has improved the overall quality of the article. In effect, the addition has given an example of a non-renewable mineral resource. The strengths are that it is clear and concisely described. Balancing the tone, i.e. presenting some of the language in a more passive tone may improve the content overall. Furthermore, adding to the image's caption, source, and type of copyright is necessary.

Overall evaluation
Good: this addition to the article hits most of the main criteria and requires only slight revision.