User:SpaceCat13/Chemistry and Camera complex/Cherin105 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

 * The is a peer review page for SpaceCat13 on Chemistry and Camera complex
 * Link to the draft: User:SpaceCat13/Chemistry and Camera complex

Lead evaluation
'''There's no introductory sentences indicating or explaining what the article is about. The article's name is Chemistry and Camera complex, but there's no summary or concise paragraph that captures the essence/main idea of the topic. I'd want to make a suggestion that adding the introductory paragraph would enhance the overall quality of the page and benefit readers. However, I looked at the original page, there is an introduction part that appears to be well-put. Maybe this is why the author does not add his/her own version of introduction.'''

''The original article has a strong lead but the rest of the article needs additional information and reorganization. I will keep most of the lead and general overview section already written for the ChemCam article.''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Each section in the article is relevant to the topics. I really like how each section is laid out. The content/description for each section is relevant to the main topic. Thanks!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added by the author appear to be up-to-date based on the sources cited. The topic/content contains a certain amount of new tools and techniques which I think having this page would be beneficial to the audiences that want to get a glimpse of the main subject. Thanks! I have clarified some up-to-date tools and scientific discoveries.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There's no content that does not belong to the article. As described earlier, the one thing that's missing from this article is the introduction. Addressed above.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The content of this article does not violate or deal any Wikipedia's equity. It does not address any historic issues relating to underrepresented populations/topics. Agreed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral with a good amount of references backing up the facts in the article. Agreed.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There's no claim that appear to be heavily biased. Agreed.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article talks about the application of these techniques/tools toward studying Martian soil and rocks. It also says that ChemCam has the ability to measure MnO and Li2O. However, personally, the whole paragraph has more details on Martian rocks than other application. If possible, I'd like to suggest adding more information about other applications of ChemCam.
 * There are many applications of ChemCam and many scientific discoveries made. I don't want the article to get bogged down with a long list of scientific contributions, but I added more about general geochemical capabilities of ChemCam and broad discoveries made via these capabilities. I don't think expanding in a lot of detail about the technical methods of spectral lines and multivariate statistics in beneficial in this context.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content does not persuade the reader toward any particular position. Agreed.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All the new content added by the author is backed by a reliable sources. Agreed. Also three more sources were added recently.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Through my own research, the sources can be more thorough. The instrument section only has one paper cited for each instrument. Adding more papers of these instrument would enhance the coverage and improve the credibility of the article. I have added additional sources to the article and included more specific citations in the instrumentation section.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All the sources cited by the author is up-to-date. The oldest paper that is used as a reference is published on 2012. Curiosity landed in 2012, so I think it is appropriate to included sources that are at least that relevant.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * All the sources come from different authors and a wide range of prestige scientific journals. Agreed. Most sources include authors that are currently on the ChemCam team or have been in the past. I'm not entirely sure if this is a strength or a weakness.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All URLs at the reference section work and link to correct articles. That is desired.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well-written. The messages from the article are clear and well-put. The overall structure makes the contents easy to follow. Awesome!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There's one spelling error. The word on the article is course-grained. It should be coarse-grained. Aside from this issue, the overall article is well-written and grammatically correct. I have corrected this spelling error.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article's structure is well-organized. It's divided into two main sections with several sub-headings. These main points clearly indicate the big picture of the topic. Agreed. This was the aim of this Wikipedia article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The content added by the author does not include any images. I believe that adding some images of the instruments or even some soil/rocks found on Mars may help readers understand the topic more. However, when I looked at the original page, there are a good amount of images already. The original article has lots of images. I have added an image of a bedrock target and its colorized RMI. I believe this will help the reader understand what a typical bedrock target looks like along with the scale and framing of the RMI.
 * Are images well-captioned? The article does not include any images. One new image has been added.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The article does not include any images. One new image has been added.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The article added by the author does not include any images. Since there are some images on the original page, there can be an improvement in terms of organization. The images on the original page do not lay out in a visually appealing way. Maybe the author could improve on this point. Agreed. I will improve the organization of the official article to resemble the sandbox article I have created.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added by the author really improve the quality of the page. The original page only consists of the introduction and the overview sections. By adding more sections about the instruments and application, the author did a great job completing the article. Thank you!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The instrument sections strengthen the article and really give readers the big picture of the main topic. Agreed!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content can be improved by adding more references in the instrument section and adding more information about other application of Chemcam aside from evaluating Martian rocks/soils. I have added three additional references and included them in the instrument section. ChemCam's applications are to evaluate rocks and soils on Mars. I plan to emphasize this when incorporating my article into the original article.

Overall evaluation
'''Overall, the author did a great job organizing this page. The subsections added is well-written and cover the relevant points about the topic. There's no visible typo or grammatical errors. The content is well-written and easy to understand. The references listed are unbiased and include a wide range of reputable journals. The links to the original publication are correct. However, adding more references on the instrument section would improve the credibility of the article. Adding more applications/implication of Chemcam would also help the reader gain a better understanding about these instruments. I am not sure if the author plan to add more images onto the article. However, for the original page, I believe there needs to be more work done to rearrange those images in a more organized fashion.' Agreed.''