User:Tamara Omar/Chromite/Sltannaeemi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Tamara Omar


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Tamara Omar/Chromite


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: Yes, I do indeed think that the lead has been improved substantially. As, the lead is now more simple and basic and gets to the point. In the new and improved lead, the peer mentions that Chromium use is now higher and thus then leads to destruction in environmental aspects. Furthermore, it also briefly expands on the different forms of chromite and its individual impact it brings. Subsequently, I do agree that the lead does incorporate a concise and effective delivery to the reader as it does not beat around the bush and goes straight to the point. Moreover, I think that the lead does overview the following subsections, as it goes through the subsections of health hazards and environmental hazards. Additionally, the lead does incorporate some information that is present in the subsection headings. For example, the health hazards and the acute effects it has on the human body is both displayed in the lead section and the article subsections itself. In summary of the lead section, I think that the lead section is concise and does deliver the message to the reader in a effective manner. Also, I do not think it is overly detailed, as it supplements just the right amount of information for the reader to gauge the effects and the exact background information on the topic.

Content: I think that the content added by the peer is relevant to the topic. As it covers the basis of the detailed health effects that chromium displays and as well the environmental effects. The following covers topics of mining, leaching and aquatic life that connects to chromite and the various impacts and properties it displays. Analyzing the overall information incorporated to this article, the general information applied is observed to be up to date generally as articles are observed to be within 10 years of recent information. However, to get detailed the first reference from author Adel Zayed can be considered as out of date. As the article is from 2003, and is not within 10 years of recent information. Furthermore, I do believe that the information in this article is detailed and does provide a lot of information pertaining to this topic. However, I do believe that the peer should include a topic on the history and its properties of chromite. As the topic of chromite, is and should be more revolved around just the two topics of health hazards and environmental hazards, and could be more in depth of other subtopics and thus provide other information. Moreover, the article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps, as the article covers topics of major subjects like health and environmental aspects. The article does not really engage in historically underrepresented topics as mentioned previously, as it just covers health hazards and environmental hazards.

Tone and Balance: The following article does not seem to be as neutral. As the article gives more of a negative impact and negative perspective to the topic. The article mentions more on the impacts of both health of the human body and the environmental impact it has. The article gives an outlook of the substance to be more of the potential hazards it has to the surrounding environments. In addition, the article does not further claim to be on one side, but does give the reader and the following article to be placed in a given position. As it just sheds light to the negative, as mentioned previously. I think the improvements to this article should be reflected to both negative and positive outlook, and should thus then incorporate additional information on the positives of Chromite. For example, the benefits, the purpose of use and etc. I think the viewpoints on these following topics under Chromite is overrepresented. This is because, as mentioned previously, the article improvements are more on the negative impact it brings and does not shed lights on minority topics and the positive outlooks the substance brings. Overall, I do think that the content added would essentially sway the reader to a specific side of Chromium to be a more negative outlook. The reader would definitely think that Chromite is a substance that has very negative impacts towards the human health and the environmental field, and that one should then not posses or utilize the substance or just make away with the substance totally.

Sources and References: Yes, analyzing through the sources in the added information. The articles are indeed backed up by secondary sources. As, I observed through the 6 links/sources available, the sources are linked to sources that are backed with peer reviewed sources and have specific sources for each individual chapter in the website/source. For example, in the third source provided, the website includes various sources backed up by peer reviewed sources, one of which like that of a secondary source of Environment Canada, which is a government approved and legal website that can be appropriately fact checked. I do think the sources cited are accurately reflecting what the peer has written as it covers topics of Chromium being detrimental to the human health and environment. For example, giving humans acute symptoms like nausea and irritation, leading to environmental problems like water pollution. I do believe that the sources are thorough, as they are backed up by various peer reviewed sources like that of I mentioned in the example. For the most part of this article, I do believe that most sources are within reason of years recently and currently. As mentioned previously, one of the sources can be considered out dated, which is the first source and all the others are within 10 years of recently dated or less or currently. So, therefore, I would generally consider the articles to be current then. Subsequently, I would consider the sources to be a wide variety of authors, as the third source is referenced from government agency, the second source is sourced from a university institution and has university research affiliation, 1st and 6th sources are sourced from published journal articles. I presume that the articles supplied are sufficient, however I do think there could be better articles found and selected to further find and supply information that could thus optimally explain and provide information to the topic at hand. One of which is the renowned journal article, science direct. I have further attached the following article of chromite to the hyperlink of science direct to give an example of a further improved and approved article source. Overall, all sources, except source #4 can be opened. Source #4 has no hyperlink to access the source and source #5 is not hyperlinked so not easily accessible but can copy the link and then further explore the website and its resources.

Organization: Through analyzing the layout of the article added by the peer reviewer, I do think that the article is well organized and is properly laid out. The following subsections are according to the information underlined, and the content itself is not just one blob. The content has many separated paragraphs explaining different matters in which connects to the topic at hand. For example, under environmental effects, the peer added information to and dedicated to one paragraph about issues/information on the topic of mining related to the effects and sources of chromite linked to it and so on for the sub topics at hand under the following section. Moreover, going into the depth of the article, the spelling and the grammar is observed to be well-written and has no relevant errors evident. There are no spelling mistakes, the peer preformed an effective job at writing the addition to the article. Overall, as mentioned before, the article is straight to the point and gets to the information in an effective manner. As it just displays the vital information at hand, and does not give a reader a whole story, rather gets to the information and gives the reader a concise look and in-depth detail to the matter. Also, meaning it would easily give the reader an understanding and knowledge about this topic after reading the article and allow for people to properly go through the material written.

Images and Media: The following peer does not have images or any media evident throughout the added article. So, N/A. I would advise the peer to add the following appropriate images that would then help explain the topic at hand and give the reader a visual of the topic/explanation of the subject.

Overall Impressions: In conclusion, the added/improved article does seem to have an improved quality in general. As the description and the information in this article is concise and incorporates in-depth detail of the various covered topics of Chromite. Furthermore, the quality also pertains to the sources included in the article, and the sources added are observed to be reliable and backed by various secondary peer approved articles. Viewing the strengths of this article, I do believe that the article effectively goes over the impacts that Chromite has on both the human body and environment. The article is backed up by peer reviewed sources and it effectively communicates to the reader in a concise manner. As the article added does not have so much overwhelming information involved and is properly organized for the reader to gauge in the topic of Chromite. Looking at the possible improvements for this article, I think that article shouldn't just primarily focus on the negative outlook of Chromite, and should focus on both the positive and negative outlook/impact. I would also add in that the article should incorporate the history of Chromite and how it essentially came to be found and experimented with throughout the years, in which would also not just cover the topics around Chromite, rather the actual substance itself. Lastly, I would also suggest that the peer should also add in images, tables or graphs of the topics covered, as this would gauge more readers in and also give readers a visual to work with. Other then these suggested improvements, I think the peer did a remarkable job in covering the topic.