User:Tahliafarr/Gemstone/WanderingAurora Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Tahlifarr


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tahliafarr/Gemstone?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gemstone

Lead
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: It has not although it was not a requirement for the assignment so I understand why this is the case. A brief sentence in the lead mentioning that gems are often treated could be an idea for a future contribution. I think it would be a good idea to take note on your draft page if you plan on expanding this section as well as your plan for other sections.

The lead section in the original article is concise and clear, I don't think it's necessary to edit it. Additionally, I didn't notice any information stated in the Lead that is not in the article. However, the lead could benefit from the addition of a list of the article's major sections, including the sections you plan on contributing.

Content
The content added is relevant to the topic and fills a knowledge gap in the article.

Is the content added up-to-date?: It is unknown, the citation is from a secondary source with a broken link and incomplete citation. When I searched for the source, I was not able to find a date. I recommend including more sources that are up-to date. I suggest some in the sources and references section of the review.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: I believe you added an important section of information as the article was lacking information on gemstone treatments. For future contributions, I suggest contributing more information to the other treatment types as there is a lack of information- the original content is vague. Overall, all of the draft contributions are relevant and belong in the article.

Editing the Treatment section to have a more in depth introduction was a great idea. However, I believe it could benefit from more detail/citations since some of the phrasing used is vague. For instance, instead of using language such as "In some cases.." and "Some treatments", I would recommend listing the specific treatments you are referring to. This way, it can introduce the treatments that will be discussed in more detail later in the article. Furthermore, in the Bleaching section, the sentence "This method uses a chemical in order to reduce the colour of the gem" (Tahliafarr, 2023) is not clear- what chemical is it referring to? If it is a reference to "acid and hydrogen peroxide" mentioned later in the section, this information could probably be written more clear/concisely for the reader. For example: This method most commonly uses acid and hydrogen peroxide to treat and reduce the colour of gems- most notably jade and pearls, respectively.

Tone and Balance
There was a clear focus on the treatment section of the article, however since this is the first draft it is understandable. The contributions remained neutral and provided clear facts without making biased claims or persuading the reader. That being said, there is a possibility of bias as only one citation was used for the 2 paragraphs contributed, thus an addition of various primary sources could further improve the draft. Moreover, there is only one author on the source. Therefore the information may be biased towards that author's viewpoint/observations. I recommend using peer reviewed articles with various authors to cite your information.

Sources and References
All new content is only supported by one citation. Once again, I recommend using more than one citation within a section.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?: Yes, however the information was written in a more general sense in the contribution. I suggest being more specific in the article. Yes, acid and hydrogen peroxide are used for jade and pearls but which gem uses what method? A possible way of rewriting the sentence to convey this information: Acid and hydrogen peroxide are used to treat jade and pearl gemstones, respectively.

The sources do not reflect the available literature on the topic as only one research news post was used. Additionally, it is unknown if this source is current as no date was in the citation or on the website. As previously mentioned, the source was written by one author, which could be a source of bias, however it is backed by the Gemological Institute of America. I suggest using peer reviewed articles from this institute’s journal: Gems & Gemology.

The contributions consisted of one citation. When clicked, I received an error that the site cannot be reached. The citation should be fixed to be valid. Additionally, I recommend including more than one citation to ensure the information remains unbiased. From a google search I believe I found the source : https://www.gia.edu/gem-treatment. The source appears to be from the Gemological Institute of America. From an initial glance, the website appears credible, however, I would classify this as a secondary source. The inclusion of primary sources to support your contributions(in addition to secondary sources) would aid in the credibility of your information, ensuring it is not biased.

Possible sources to use to enhance the article include:

Zhou, C., Tsai, T.-H., Sturman, N., Nilpetploy, N., Manustrong, A., & Lawanwong, K. (2020). Optical whitening and brightening of pearls: A fluorescence spectroscopy study. Gems & Gemology, 56(2), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.5741/GEMS.56.2.258

bleaching of cultured pearls. (2009). In Dictionary of Gems and Gemology (pp. 94–94).

The above book in general:

Manutchehr-Danai, M., Witschel, C., & Kindler, K. (2009). Dictionary of Gems and Gemology (3rd ed. 2009.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72816-0

Fritsch, E., & Rondeau, B. (2009). Gemology; the developing science of gems. Elements (Quebec), 5(3), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.2113/gselements.5.3.147

Interesting citation which discusses current findings on artificial intelligent use in gemology, could be a new section to add to the article:

Shu, A. K. (2022). Artificial intelligence and spectroscopic techniques for gemology applications (A. K. Shu, Ed.). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/978-0-7503-3927-8

You can also discuss other scientific techniques for gemology study:

Bersani, D., & Lottici, P. P. (2010). Applications of Raman spectroscopy to gemology. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 397(7), 2631–2646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-010-3700-1

Organization
The information you added was well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read. I think you did a great job making the information accessible for the general public. As for the grammar, I didn't find any spelling errors, however I did find an area where there was an extra space by accident, I have fixed this.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: One section was added. I believe he expansion on the treatment section introduction was a great idea. The bleaching section was clearly defined with a sub-heading that matched the formatting of the original article. A general outline of what is planned on being added would have been useful.

Images and Media
One image of a pearl was added. It was well-captioned. The image adhered to Wiki's copyright regulations as it was from Wikipedia’s free media repository and has information on the owner of the photographer. I also appreciated the placement of the image as it was placed in a visually appealing way. I suggest to continue adding more images to your article are you continue to expand your draft. A possible image you can add is a diagram of the steps in the bleaching process.

Overall impressions
Overall, the content you added has improved the quality of the article. Adding more treatments types was a great idea and fills a much needed knowledge gap. Some improvements you can do that I think could really aid in enhancing your article are incorporating more citations, specifically primary sources from peer reviewed journals. For example, you could use the journal of the Gemological Institute of America in addition to the research news posts. Starting to back-up some of your more general phrases with specific details and information would be another possible next step. I highly recommend you fix your current citation as it is a broken link. You probably want to manually edit it so that you can include the author's name as well (I believe it is Robert Weldon, apart of the Gemological Institute of America). Additionally, you could begin linking text in your article to pre-existing Wiki pages. For example, you could link pearl and jade.

There are many strengths to your contribution. The formatting was easy to follow and matched the original article's format. I like your use of images and captions, the image was placed in a visually appealing way that didn't distract from the information and had a clear caption. Your writing was very accessible while keeping a professional neutral tone which makes it easy for anyone to understand the information. I also like how you stayed on task and added information that is relevant to our course material.

Possible ideas for future contributions could be to add sections on historical context, technology used to study gems, current research on the use of artificial intelligence to study gems, as well as continuing to expand the treatment sections in the original article.

Great work!