User:Morgan.b18/Borehole mining/Nightlymist Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Morgan.b18


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Morgan.b18/Borehole mining


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Borehole mining

Lead
There are some new information that has been introduced in the lead to incorporate into the article. The lead include an introductory sentence that is concisely describes the article's topic. It is not entirely clear, it should be more clear of what the topic is. The lead does include a brief description of the process section but not for the advantage.

Content
The content added is relevant to the topic. The content is not up-to-date. The sources that were used was from the original article. There is content missing like the impact of mining this way and maybe an expansion on the process. The article somewhat deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gap. It address topics related to historically underrepresented topics.

Tone and balance
The content added neutral. There are heavily biased towards a particular position of the mining. Could there be a section talking about the disadvantages or the harm to the environment. More description of what the borehole mining is and what situations do the mining industry use it.

Sources and References
The sources thorough the article are well written. There could be more sources to back up or have more modern than what the original article has.

There could be sources of information that is new that could back up what is present in the article. The sources are current. The sources are throughout the paper. The sources are placed well throughout the paper but there are only 3 sources. I recommend finding at least 7 more sources. Using the same source over and over again make it seem like there is a bias. The sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors but again there should be more sources. There are some references are from a long time ago which is good. There should be more sources that are closer to 2021. All of the sources that were used is peer reviewed articles. There are no better sources. The third link brought me somewhere where I was not able to read the whole article. The other links worked just fine.

Organization
The content added well-written and there are no grammatical or spelling errors. The content is well-organized being broken down into section that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and media
The article does not have any photos. There could be photos put in but the original article already has a photo.

Overall impression
The content added has improved the overall quality of the article. The article is well written that is well organized. Added more sources and details to each section would be great.