User:Kedmvl/Creighton Mine/Kyra Robertson 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
(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

The lead isn't fully updated to reflect the new content add, missing a few sentences about geology, seismic events and the environmental projects.

Good lead sentence and touches on most of the major sections.

It is concise and not detailed but needs a few more sentences, but over good.

Content

The new content is very relevant to the topic, all up to date and provides a brief summary of the topic in question. The sections aren't large and don't provide a great deal of information but its a good start.

Tone and Balance

The content is neutral, no bias points, everything seems to be well presented no topics have extensive content compared to others.

Sources and References

All the new added content has been backed up with proper viable references.

The sources are current, are throughout.

The majority of sources are journal or peer-review, some are by government administrations or the mining company its self and there are some other generic google sources.

Very impressed with the number of good sources and are placed properly throughout the article.

Organization

The article and added content is well structured with most important at the top and less farther down. Well broken down topics and subtopics.

Don't see any grammatical errors.

Flows very nicely and easily readable.

Images and Media

There are no new images added.

Overall Impressions

The content that was added improved the quality of the article and is more completed now.

The new sections are very good and help provide a deeper understanding of the topic and are well written.

The article is much stronger now since information has been added and provides reader more knowledge on the topic.

Some more images would be useful and increasing the sections with more information would provide a deeper undemanding of the topic for the readers.