User:Kedmvl/Creighton Mine/Amt1997 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kedmvl


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kedmvl/Creighton Mine


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead has not been fully updated, it was similar to the original article but missing few sentences that introduces the major sections.

The lead section includes an introductory sentence that concisely describes the articles topic

It could be better to add few more sentences, but overall it was good.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic, up to date, and provides a fair summary of the article. There is no missing content, and the content added is quite informative.

Tone and Balance

The content added by the editor is neutral, no points addressed was biased. The viewpoints were not overrepresented nor underrepresented. The content added was not persuasive.

Sources and References

All of the new added content by the editor has been successfully backed up by reliable references.

The sources were current and thorough.

Most of the sources listed were found to be journal and peer-reviewed articles, and the others are mining company sites.

The links are working and were placed appropriately throughout the article.

Organization

The content added is well-written, clear to read and does not consist of any grammatical errors.

The content added is well-organized and flows nicely into sections.

Images and Media

No new images were added.

Overall Impressions

The content added by the editor improved the overall quality of the article. It is more complete now.

The new sections added are informative and helped improve the background of the topic.

The new information added towards the history and production of Creighton mine were strengthened.

Overall, adding new images would be useful for the reader to understand the background.