User:SunSnowRain/Omphacite/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

 * This is a peer-review page for SunSnowRain on Omphacite
 * Link to draft: User:SunSnowRain/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The introductory paragraph reflects the contents and subsections added by the author. It consists of such a good summary that captures the big picture of the article.
 * Thanks!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead includes an introductory paragraph that captures the background and important information of the topics. It has a number of facts that most readers may look for, so I think the author did such a good job on the introductory paragraph.
 * Thanks!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a brief summary of the major sections. I recommend moving the info box up to the beginning part because it will help readers access to all the quick facts that they need about omphacite.
 * Thank you for pointing this out! When I moved the page from sandbox to the real page, the info box will automatically change its position.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Thanks!
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The introductory paragraph is concise and well-put. It can be enhanced by adding a little bit more quick facts about omphacite: occurence or economic uses etc.
 * Thank you for the suggestions. I have added an simple explanation of the occurrence of omphacite in the Lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added to the article is relevant to the topic. The article is about a mineral, and the overall article includes quick facts and summaries that are important to understand this mineral.
 * Thanks!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added seems to be up-to-date. Most of the cited work is relatively new.
 * Thanks!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There's no content that does not belong to the article. Personally, I don't think there's anything big missing about this article. However, adding more section about mining/uses/economic aspect/gem will enhance the article and benefit a wider pool of readers.
 * I agree that economy or gem is more attractive for general readers. However, unfortunately omphacite does not have so much economic value according to my knowledge. Thus, I did not have a section about those aspects.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not involve any equity problems.
 * Thanks!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content in the article is neutral. There is a certain fact that is cited by the author's own work. However, that fact is also backed up by several other publications.
 * Thanks!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There's no biased claim made on this article.
 * Thanks!
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There's no a particular viewpoint that is overstated.
 * Thanks!
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content does not seem to make an attempt to sway any particular point of view.
 * Thanks!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The content added by the author is backed up by many reliable sources, and those references come from a wide range of prestige scientific journals.
 * Thanks!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The number of references seem appropriate comparing to the length of the article. However, there are some paragraph that may need sources to back them up more.
 * Although omphacite is the solid solution of diopside and jadeite, its space group may be different with them. The space group of diopside and jadeite is C2/c. However, omphacite can show both P2/n and C2/c space group. At low temperature, the partial coupled substitution of (Na, Al)-(Mg-Fe, Ca) in omphacite orders the atoms in the unit cell and makes omphacite shows a relatively low symmetry space group P2/n. As temperature increases, the movements of the atoms increase and finally the coupled substitution will not influence the order of the structure. When temperature reaches ~700-750 ℃, the structure of omphacite becomes totally disordered and the space group will transform to C2/c.
 * This section went on really long and only have one paper cited in the end. I'm not sure if all the information only come from this one paper. If yes, then I assume it should be fine. Personally, I would find more papers to back these facts to give a good coverage.
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have added another computational study relevant to the order and disorder to cover more sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All the sources appear to be current. There's one article from 1978, but it's on the space group of omphacite in which the contents is still correct and relevant.
 * Thanks!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The publications cited by the authors are written by a wide array of authors and come from multiple prestige scientific journals relevant to the topic.
 * Thanks!
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked 5-6 links from the reference sections. They work and link to the correct article.
 * Thanks!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well-written and easy to follow. It gives clear message about the article.
 * Thanks!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There is no spelling error present in the article. However, there are some minor issues on the grammar relating to a/an/the and -s,-es issues.
 * "Although the atomic positions in the two space group have [a] subtle difference,..."
 * The major mineral components of eclogite includes include omphacite,
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised the two sentence accordingly.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well-organized. The article is divided into sections that are relevant to the main topic. I'm not sure if omphacite is widely used in gem industry. If it is, I think adding more section that talks about mining/gem/economic side of omphacite would be a great idea.
 * Thank you for the suggestions. However, omphacite is not widely used in gem industry.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article includes images and figures that enhance the understanding of the topic. There's one image of eclogite that contains omphacite, which help readers get a sense of the occurrence of omphacite in real geologic setting. There's one figure about phase diagram of omphacite, which also highlights the stable condition of this mineral.
 * Thanks!
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * All images are well-captioned and add more useful facts about the topic. On the phase diagram, the caption can be modified/added to say more about omphcite.
 * I have added more content in the caption of the phase diagram to address the features of omphacite. Thanks!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * All the images conform to Wikipedia's copyright regulation. One of them is the author's own work. One of them is for public domain.
 * Thanks!
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The organization of the figure is well-laid-out. However, I recommend moving the info box to the top, so the image of eclogite will be easier to see/notice.
 * Thank you for pointing this out! When I move it out of my sandbox, the info box will change the position automatically.

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 article. The original page only has one big paragraph and an infobox about omphacite.
 * Thanks!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added brings more aspects and facts about omphacite that enhance the quality of the page.
 * Thanks!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * As I recommended in the section above, adding more section about mining/gem/economic use/usages would benefit a wider range of audiences.
 * It is definitely better if a section about those is added. However, it seems omphacite by far does not have some much economic usage.

Overall evaluation
'''The author did a great job in the introductory part. Comparing to the original article, the introductory paragraph for that page is overly detailed and not well-organized. The author also shows subsections that are relevant to the main topic. Most of the facts are cited, except for the space group section that I feel like more references should be added. All the sources cited are reliable. There are papers that are affiliated with the author. If there are other reliable sources that can back the same fact, I recommend changing the reference because of the Wikipedia's notability requirement below.'''

''"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.''

'''The images on the article are relevant and enhance the quality of the page. I suggest moving the infobox up to the top of the page. There's some grammar issues as mentioned above. Overall, the work done by the author really improves the page and will benefit people who are interested in this topic.'''

Thank you so much for the help to improve the article! I have replied the comments above. Thus, I will not repeat all the issues here. Thanks!