User:Laukes/Iceland spar/MacGuire Roughley Peer Review

General info
Laukes
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
LEAD

The lead is very concise, and the information is relevant to the remainder of the article. It doesn't specifically mention the major components of the articles but the information is relevant, for example the note of the this spar in the polarization of light and then the section of the significance if the world of optical petrology, so I don't think this is a huge issue. The lead accurately describes the topic and, arguably, I think it would be redundant to get into any more detail that would be later covered in another section. So, I think the lead is concise and effective.

CONTENT

The added content is all relevant to the topic and I do not feel that any information is off-topic. All of the new sections are also great additions and are looking good so far, The large addition to the mining section is great and the subsections within as well. The Conservation and Protection section is a good modern addition. A quick scan of the publication dates of the references also shows that the information is all generally 2000 and newer. Topics that are discussed so far seem to have pretty solid coverage and explanations, The Cultural Impact could probably use some help and context (I have a similar issue with my article, there was an already existing 'pop culture' section with very little info). I also like the Modern Applications section, and going into some of the uses of of the previously stated optical properties. I would consider merging or creating a bit of a divide between Modern Applications and Uses, they are similar ideas but I can see how they should be separated, maybe as subsections instead? Overall very good so far.

TONE AND BALANCE

I think you keep a great neutral tone, especially talking about the mining process which is very easy to be negative. I don't see any bias or leading sentences, the tone stays very consistent from section to section. I think the only persuading idea is how beneficial the spar has been for the study of optical mineralogy and exploring uses of optical properties, I think that this is undisputed and not a viewpoint but rather fact. Overall great presentation of data and information in a neutral way.

SOURCES

From the mining section onward, there are virtually no references. (I assume you are in the process of adding citations?). The prior sections of the article have ample citations and sentences are backed by citations everywhere they should be. For some of the section that have already been written (existing) it seems they might need a refresher/update on the sources. For example in the characteristics and optical properties section the beginning paragraph has no citations (it is an existing paragraph), The information in the paragraph, especially the last sentence could probably use a citations.

Some of the existing citations are also a bit questionable, for example citation 19 goes to a pretty sketchy website.

Like mentioned before the citations seem up to date which is good. There are some old publications but with minerally and petrology a lot of the astounding breakthroughs and heavy base research was done in the 90s so I think that this is okay, as long as there are a lot of newer citations as well. There is a good mix of publications and I checked a few of the links and they seem to function properly.

Check out this article:

Habermann, D., Niklas, J.R., Meijer, J., et al. (2001). Structural Point Defects in "Iceland Spar" Calcite. Nuclear Instrument and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interaction with Materials and Atoms, Elsevier. 181(1-4), 563-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(01)00354-8

Interesting look into some REE conc/affects, If not useful to you it is at least a reliable source  that mentions some other specific locations in Iceland the spar is found outside of Helgustadir in East Iceland. As well as some chemistry differences from location to location.

ORGANIZATION

The organization is good, as mentioned before the uses and modern application could probably be sub grouped, like the mining section. But overall, the flow is okay and section are separated as they need to be.

IMAGES AND MEDIA

I see a photo on the published article, not sure if you have any images set aside but with such a beautiful and optically pleasing mineral like Iceland Spar I think more photos would be a great idea. Mentioning birefringence, refraction, and polarizing microscopes it may be useful to include a relevant diagram, or at least make sure those ideas a linked to their representative wiki pages so a viewer can easily understand some of the harder to grasp ideas relating to optical mineralogy. With optical mineralogy a lot of publications have animations that go a long with them:


 * http://www.minsocam.org/msa/DGTtxt/
 * This website is "mineralogy and Optical Mineralogy" by M. Darby Dyar and Mickey E. Gunter. The text book is not free but the animations are all public - may be useful. Used it a lot for ERTH 2102.

Great Job so far. I'd say main focus could be on citations for the new section.