User:Rhurlow/Antigorite/SunSnowRain Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Rhurlow
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rhurlow/sandbox/Antigorite

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead was created by my peer and reflects the new content. The Lead has a good introductory sentence, which is concise and clear. The Lead includes most of the article's sections. However, I think it is better to mention gemstone in the Lead. Overall the Lead is pretty good. It concisely summarized the main issues of the topic.

''Reply: Great! I will added in a bit about gemstone properties to have that section in the lead.''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content created are closely related to the topic. Actually, this is a new article created by me peer. The content combined mostly recently researches and covers most important issues about this topic. This new articles fill in the gaps about this mineral in Wikipedia. The overall content is good.

Reply: Thanks!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content are neutral. In this new article, my peer didn't talk about any controversial issues. The physical properties, structure, and occurrence of the minerals are well studied. My peer summarized the information from different literatures. The tone is good.

Reply: Thanks!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the new content is backed up by papers from scientific journals. The sources are up-to-data and reliable. All the references are closely related to the topic. One small problem is that in the Gemstone part, I didn't see any references. It may be better if my peer can provide some references. Also, some references have wrong format. It may be better to only remain the years for the date. The overall sources for this article are reliable and solid.

''Reply: I added in some references! I took a lot of that from the previous Antigorite section that wasn't cited. I will double checked all the dates on my references - changed from exact dates to years.''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
All the content are well written. The division of different sections are clear. However, I have small suggestions about the structure. It is may be better to introduce the occurrence first and then tell about its properties. Also, I think it is better to divide the gemstone parts to be an individual section.

Small suggestions:

''Reply: I think that the reorganization you suggest is good - I put geological occurrences at the beginning. I edited small changes 1, 2, and 3.''
 * 1) In physical properties section, my peer wrote "The monoclinic crystals show". It is the first time she mentioned monoclinic structure. It may be better to mention it in the Lead.
 * 2) In physical properties section, I recommend "lattice preferred orientation" not "preferred lattice orientation".
 * 3) In structure section, the "magenisan" was spelled wrongly in the second line.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The images are pretty helpful for reader to understand this topic. All images are well-captioned. The pictures of the minerals give readers a straightforward impression of the mineral. The structure image also helps to understand some features of the mineral. All the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Reply: Thank you!

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
The secondary sources listed in this topic are reliable and accurately represent available literature. The article follow the patterns of other mineral article and it is linked to other articles.

Reply: Great!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This article fills in the gap about antigorite. The content are good source for general readers to understand this mineral. The gemstone parts are interesting and attractive. The article is concise and easy to understand. My peer does a good work on this article!

Reply: Thank you!