User:SunSnowRain/Omphacite/MJCato 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? SunSnowRain
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SunSnowRain/sandbox

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 lead is great, but it would be worth including a sentence about the occurrence. I am going to put some links to an infobox below, but a lot of the hardness/ect can be included in the standard mineral infobox. It looks like you did include one, just make sure it is at the top! You can remove the last sentence of the lead, as that information is in the infobox.

Thanks for the comments. I have added more information about the occurrence in the Lead. For the information which is also in the infobox, I still prefer to leave it. I checked other articles about minerals in wiki and it seems they all prefer to still mention it in the Lead although the information is in the infobox. I want to be consistent with the structure of other mineral articles.

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
The content is good and thorough, I don't really have any suggestions other than the standard mineral infobox.

Thanks!

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
This is all good!

Thanks!

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
All the sources are good, but the second paragraph of 'Formationa and occurrence' and all of 'Etymology and history' have no sources.

Thanks for the comments. Those two parts are from the original article. Personally, I don't know the references for those two parts, especially for the "Etymology and history" part. For the second paragraph of "Formation and occurrence", I will add some references to it.

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
organization is great, I don't really have any comments!

Thanks!

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
Images are all handled well, but may be worth linking to phase diagram so that people know how to read it.

Thanks! I will add the link.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This is all good!

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
I honestly don't have much to add. The article is well put together and just needs the infobox moved to the top, those sources added, the last sentence of the lead removed, and 'Space Group' to be 'Space group.'

Thanks for the comments. When the page move out of my sandbox, the infobox will move to the top automatically. The reply for other comments are listed above.