User:Morgan.b18/Borehole mining/Rumrunner3210 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

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 of this article has been updated and is clear and concise, no real suggestions here as it's pretty well done, neutrality was maintained and the sources were well cited.

Content
There wasn't a lot added to the article, but what was added was relevant to the topic and maintained a neutral tone. The process section was reworded from a numbered list to a couple of sentences. Would suggest adding some pictures to clarify things in terms of showing what the machinery looks like. The casing column is mentioned in the original article but not mentioned in the edits, I'm not sure if this is important. Most of the sources that were used are up to date and of a good quality.

Tone and balance
Content that was added is neutral and does not appear to be biased towards a viewpoint.

Organization
The content is very clear, concise and well organized.

Overall Impressions
The student didn't add much to the article yet, I didn't see any content on the talk page, but looking at the History I was able to see that a couple of sections were added. I would suggest that plans for what you're planning on doing with the article to be added to the talk page. There weren't any issues that I could spot in regards to spelling or grammar.