User:Ol Evene/Pyrrhotite/Vansam823 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ol Evene


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Pyrrhotite
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Pyrrhotite

Peer Review
Hello, Ol Evene here is my review:

Lead
The lead was not worked on. The Lead on the current article is well written, short and to the point with a neutral tone. It could, however, use another citation. Maybe some examples of what it is used for could be added.

Structure Subheading
Ol Evene said the structure and magnetic properties subheadings were not changed; however, it looks like the image used in the magnetic properties subheading was moved to the structure one. I agree with the change, the image being placed in structure makes more sense as it is a structure of the mineral.

Identification: Physical Properties
Identification is a new heading with two new subheadings, physical and optical properties. The identification subheading is relevant to the topic and adds a lot of detail to the article.


 * The 9th reference used is an old looking website (no date) that says it is created by a geologist with a lot of experience; however, it does not fit well as an acceptable source. Perhaps another citations is needed along with this one to back it up.
 * The second sentence may lack a neutral tone with the use of "may be confused". It could we worded this way: "Pyrrhotite has similar coloring properties as..." this also states why it is similar and why it may be mistaken for the other minerals.
 * The 2nd and 10th reference are both websites which appears to be the Wikipedia's of minerals, they seems to be a good sources; however, another citations from a book or academic journal may be needed.
 * The 10th reference is also just a random page from some document, I would not considered this reliable.
 * For the Streak, I would maybe include it with the color mention: "pyrite is...color with a greenish black streak...". I don't think the streaks of the other similar minerals need a mention because this page is specific to this mineral and if someone wants that information they can go to those pages. The identification properties are usually specific to each individual mineral and if uncertain the other identification methods should be used to differ between them anyways.

This little paragraph confused me:

"Diagnostic characteristics in hand samples include: brassy/bronze color when paired with a grey/black streak, tabular or hexagonal crystals which show iridescence, subconchoidal fracture, metallic luster, and magnetism." Copied from User:Ol Evene/Pyrrhotite.


 * It is a long list with a lot of descriptors. Maybe breaking it up into two sentences would make it less confusing.
 * If not plural: no s with crystals and a s at shows
 * magnestism to magnetism
 * missing a citation or two.

Identification: Optical Properties
"Pyrrhotite, and other opaque minerals can be identified optically using a reflected light ore microscope (which contains an upper reflecting polarizing light illuminator)" Copied from User:Ol Evene/Pyrrhotite.


 * Does this microscope already have it or is it being stated that it needs to have it to identify it. If it already has it I would remove the part with the parentheses and if not perhaps state: "a reflected light ore microscope with a upper reflecting polarizing light illuminator."

"As such, the following optical properties are representative of polished/puck sections under using ore microscopy:" Copied from User:Ol Evene/Pyrrhotite.


 * under may need to be removed or this sentence just needs to be re-worked.

This section requires more citations, the 13th reference is a reliable source; however, it is the only one used for two paragraphs and is rather old. More citations are also needed for the amount of information.

General Content
The article is not part of Wikipedia's equity gap and it does not address any historically underrepresented populations or topics. All the content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date as mineral properties do not usually change much overtime. What was added seems to be complete, there are other identifying properties; however, the author is still drafting.

Tone and Balance
All additions in the draft except for maybe that one part I mentioned above in the physical properties appears to have a neutral tone. There is no biased claims, overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints, and no attempts to persuade. It stays factual and to the point.

The balance of the two added sections are both about the same length showing equal importance. They seem to be the right size for the content it is adding to the article, I am assuming other properties will be added as well making the identification section longer. The only section which will need to be displaced is the magnetic properties, it may be added as a separate identification subsection, as a subsection under physical properties, or just incorporated into physical properties.

Sources and References
More reliable sources are needed, as in scholarly journals and books. Most of the references are from websites, some of the websites seem reliable; however, a secondary citation with a reliable source should be added. The source can also be more up to date or the older one can be backed up with more recent one. Everything is cited, however, except for the diagnostic characteristics. Perhaps they are notes or they are still being drafted. Also, all the links for the new material works.

Organization/Clarity
Overall the draft version has a well organized layout and is clear. I had no problems following along and understanding the content. It is simple and to the point with no details or viewpoints bogging it down. There appears to be very little grammar and spelling mistakes. The magnetic properties heading may be added as a subheading under physical properties. It seems to be an important characteristic to this mineral in where it can have a whole subsection. If it is not, the details could be further mixed into the physical properties.

Images and Media
The image used in the magnetic properties was placed into the structures section which I also think is a better location for it. It is well captioned and follows Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Maybe switching the image to the right side would be more visually appealing as the info box is also on the same side and it may help with the reading flow. However, switching the images sides as the you read through the article can also look more appealing.

Overall impressions
Overall the additions to the article have lengthened it with useful well written information. It has improved its quality. It is well written and organized well. The only area of improvement needed is the references used and the lack of secondary citations. Otherwise it is well done. Good job!