User:NeuroBlast100/Gemstone/Frances Mamman Peer Review

General info
User:NeuroBlast100
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:NeuroBlast100/Gemstone
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Gemstone

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.)

the article already has much information on the topic. An the introduction has a good description of the the topic and gives the reader a good idea of the topic. The draft added more accurate and recent references, the draft also includes correct examples relating to gemstones like how brittleness and lack of durability is used as a criteria when choosing what minerals to use for gemstones. since the article is already well detailed all it needed was light editing and recent references and more accurate numbers such as the price of coloured gemstones [which was corrected to US$ 1.55 billion].

One thing i would recommend is using more peer reviewed references instead of articles, such as the part which shows how to identify gemstones using certain qualities.

one strength of the edit is the good use of examples and giving references. the draft did a good job of not being biased and not trying to persuade the reader. In general the just needed refinement and light editing just to keep the information on the article accurate and present the reader with enough information.