User:Rumbling Octopus/Optical mineralogy/Denniskuipers Peer Review

General info
Rumbling Octopus

User:Rumbling Octopus/sandbox

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No changes have been proposed to the lead on the sandbox. In my opinion the current lead is sufficient even after the new content is added as mineral properties are the only proposals at the moment.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes the opening sentence describes the study well.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead does describe some but not all of the following sections in the article. It seems like it was not updated when the later sections were added or they didn't think it was necessary to mention.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No the lead does a good job mentioning only information that can be expanded on within the article itself.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is a good length as is.

Lead evaluation
The lead is well written and includes only the necessities for the exception of the Double Refraction header, but that header is indirectly mentioned under the properties and techniques extinction angle.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The added content added is directly relevant as the mineral properties described are all functions of the rocks visual appearance and optics.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

All properties listed under properties and techniques in the lead are mentioned in the article in some form except for the one that does not already contain a Wikipedia page, Sign of elongation. This would arguably be the most important one to include a section on as no other information is available on this site whereas each other one has pages to read up further on them.

Content evaluation
The current and proposed content is strong and relevant. The only issue found was the lack of mention of the Sign of Elongation property in the body of the text.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?

The content on the sandbox page does a good job not attempting to persuade the reader.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article does not appear to hold any bias towards any position.


 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

The Extinction section under the Double Refraction header does seem over represented as the actual wiki page for it is shorter than the provided content.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No the content does not appear to be suggesting any one side is better.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does a good job keeping a professional tone and does not represent any bias towards any position, but the Extinction section does appear to be a little much.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Not all information proposed in the sandbox is followed by a reference to a reliable source. For instance readers may want to find out more about "Some minerals decompose readily and become turbid and semi-transparent (e.g. feldspar); others remain always perfectly fresh and clear (e.g. quartz), while others yield characteristic secondary products (such as green chlorite after biotite)".


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The sources are relevant, but few in numbers because the page is based on an out of date Britannica article. More recent sources are available on the subject.


 * Are the sources current?

Aside from the Britannica article the sources are up to date.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

All links work as intended.

Sources and references evaluation
The new content could use a few references to their sources. The current page could also use a few references because the 1911 Britannica article is out of date and newer sources are out there for the information it covers.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The last sentence under the Color section could be worded better, but other than that the additional content is very clear and well written.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

All content is grammatically correct with no errors.

Organization evaluation
Aside from one sentence under the Color section, the content is well written and organized into easily manageable categories

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Each of the mineralogical properties in the sandbox are optical properties of minerals and therefore correctly fall under the Optical Mineralogy study.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Small wording improvements can be made occasionally. More references could be sprinkled in as well to allow the reader to learn more about certain topics only mentioned in the old Britannica article.

Overall evaluation
The article as a whole is well written and makes good use of the lead to specify what the article contains. The body of the article could contain more in-text citations and more references. There are no glaring issues with the article or the suggested contributions, but only little edits to wording and the Extinction sections being a little long.