User:SpaceCat13/Chemistry and Camera complex/Zwymmmm 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)
 * SpaceCat13
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:SpaceCat13/Chemistry and Camera complex

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 article is well-written and well-structured. However, the article does not include a Lead part. It would be great to write a few sentence in the Lead like  Chemistry and Camera complex (ChemCam) is a suite of remote sensing instruments on Mars for the Curiosity'' rover that utilizes laser to probe the Martian surface remotely. As the name implies, ChemCam is actually two different instruments combined as one: a laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) and a Remote Micro Imager (RMI) telescope ''.

I didn't include a lead initially because the original article has a decent lead already, but I will try to incorporate these couple of sentences when I transfer my sandbox to the main article.

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
Yes, the content is updated and useful.

''Agreed. I tried to use relevant, current sources to provide current information.''

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 is neutral and the viewpoints are well-presented, but I think some information in the original wiki. page for Chemcam should be included in this new page. For example,  the LIBS instrument can target a rock or soil sample from up to 7 m (23 ft) away, vaporizing a small amount of it with about 50 to 75 -nanosecond pulses from a 1067 nm infrared laser and then observing the spectrum of the light emitted by the vaporized rock . ''The RMI resolves 1 mm (0.039 in) objects at 10 m (33 ft) distance, and has a field of view covering 20 cm (7.9 in) at that distance. ''

Agreed. I will try to keep most of the original material when I transfer my contributions. I will try to keep the article organized with no redundant information.

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
The sources are in the recent years. However,  Averaging bedrock target compositions produce distinguishable chemistry by geologic unit  and 'ChemCam has measured MnO up to 25 wt% in fracture fills that suggests Mars was once a more oxygenating environment' may need a reference, respectively.

''Agreed. I have added sources to these sentences and additional citations throughout the article. I have added three more references for a total of eight sources thus far.''

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
The content is well-written. I only found one grammar error:  Averaging bedrock target compositions produces  to 'produce'.

I have changed the structure of this sentence to read, "There are distinguishable geologic units determined from orbital analyses that have been confirmed by averaged bedrock compositions determined from ChemCam and other instruments aboard Curiosity."

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
Adding some pictures like the pictures in Chemistry and Camera complex help readers to understand the content faster.

''The original article has plenty of images (perhaps too many). I plan to reorganize the images already in the article. I have also added an additional image of a typical bedrock target with its corresponding colorized RMI.''

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?

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
Overall, the article is pretty good. As mentioned before, the article will be improved if it includes the lead part, pictures, and some information from the original wiki page for Chemcam.