User:Shrekinspector/Ore/RockySurfaces Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

This is a peer review of user Shrekinspector, and their proposed changes to the article of Ore.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * A draft of their changes is available at their article Ore draft.
 * For a list of proposed references, see their sandbox of bibliography material.


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The current version of the article of Ore is found at the linked word.

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.)

With some minor edits to the lead section proposed by this user, the lead is slated to be updated to better summarize changes made to other sections on the article page, as laid out in the draft article. It seems planned that there will be changes to the lead to include explanation for each major section edited to provide a viewer with more relevant information when reading this page. Browsing through the draft article, it appears the additional content of each section will support the section heading and ultimately the overall topic of ore information. Under the section Ore Deposits, additional and edited content will remain relevant to various types of deposits. Also with proposed changes to the extraction section, current knowledge and cited material will keep the edits relevant to the process of finding, claiming and extraction of ore material. By changing the current material via the draft article the user is updating previous knowledge to modern times and research papers at citations support this.
 * Lead
 * Content

Content that should not be present on the current page of the Ore article will be edited, changed or removed by the user to better reflect the available data and facts about ore deposit types, extraction methods and others. During writing of this review (03-03-2023), there are some unfilled holes in the draft article. Overall there does not appear to be missing content based on a rough outline of what is to be edited in the near future. An existing equity gap does not seem to be present, nor are underrepresented populations present. On the bibliography draft page of this user, the few provided sources take a person to the site of where the information will come from. Though the third reference takes a small amount of searching to find the material, it is freely available for viewing and downloading specific chapters either at the book link or by the DOI link.
 * Sources and References

Within the draft article, there is a multitude more references provided to individual claims of information. In most areas where there has been improvement of the existing article, a citation has been added at the end of the sentences. If there are not then the user may be updating the known info to accommodate a source. All appear to be from reliable and peer-reviewed journals or books about various methods of ore formation and associated information.

Choosing some sources at random to examine, source #4 is an article about rare earth elements of carbonatites. In the proposed draft article briefly detail the origin and constituents of a carbonatite rock. Supporting evidence of this claim is partially found in the abstract at the reference link of the draft page, and should be present is the book chapter if access was gained. Source #10 references an article about skarns and skarn related deposits as the main focus. The draft has a few words about skarn formation and main elements found within. Relevant material to match that in the draft is found in the intro paragraphs. On the topic of porphyry deposits, source #8 in the draft states these types of mineral formations are a main source of copper and give the second half of a sentence to where these may present themselves during ore formation processes. Opening the paper on the given link, the information is extracted from the abstract and intro as cited material.

The current spread of sources used in this draft does reflect a large portion of available knowledge on the subject, with each relating to different steps and conditions of ore formation. Many sources linked are current research, within the last 10 years and ranging from 1981 for skarn deposits to 2020 for porphyry deposits. Each given paper has different authors from the next, resulting in a very diverse range of researchers and publishers. It is unknown whether the authors are or have been marginalized.

With most sources taken from peer-reviewed journals or textbooks on subject matter pertaining to ore genesis, there could be possibility for additional scientific papers that have advanced the knowledge on topics. No news pieces are present or used as reference material. All provided links appear to be functional and take a user to the article publisher or paper without need for external searching except for the one mentioned above. At the current state of the draft article, the tone of planned content appears neutral by using established scientific evidence as a background of source material. In some spaces though, the use of third person seems rather strange to refer to an ore deposit type and descriptions within. Heavy bias in claims is not present in the draft to either subject matter or an individual.
 * Tone and Balance

Most of the future article changes have 3-5 sentences describing a deposit type or extraction process. Some current additions are only one to two sentences and could be expanded slightly if relevant source information is found. Thus, most information is neither over- or under-represented in the draft. With the proposed changes, a reader is unlikely to be swayed to favor one perspective or another. Following guideline already in place in the state of the current article, the addition and modification will remain within those bounds while expanding the present knowledge of each subject. As the draft looks, the readability is easy and material is presented in a clear way to assist with reading ease. There are currently a few minor mistakes with grammar, such as unnecessary spaces in the skarn subheading, and a reference that could use a slight fix. Aside from those, the grammatical structure of the draft is very good.
 * Organization

Pointed out in the first sentence, organization of new information will follow the old, separating each deposit type into a list with subtypes, if any. The overall edits have a structured thought process of the information included and where to place them within a section. These additions to the Ore article will greatly improve the existing article in quantity and quality with referenced supported claims behind each sentence of paragraph. Strengths of the added content are the update and reworking of a previous knowledge base to new research, and expanding of what was there to include more in depth descriptions. There is not much to say about improving content in the draft, as changes occur constantly, other than to continue the research into ores and associated facts.
 * Overall Impressions