User:Tandoori Jones/Zinc mining/BrdvltLB 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)
 * Tandoori Jones
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Tandoori Jones/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, The lead has been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead includes an an introductory sentence that is concise, and describes the article's topic with good clarity.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead does not include a brief description of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead expands on the lead of the original article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic, as it contains the major sections; history, methods of extraction, and production. All these sections are associated with zinc mining.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added is up-to-date, the most recent source is from 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content added lacks images, which can be beneficial to add.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added has a neutral tone
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward any particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added does not persuade the reader in any position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All content is backed up by a reliable secondary source, as it contains sources from reputable publishers, peer-reviewed journals, academic presses, and encyclopedias.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough, and reflects literature related to the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current, with the most recent source from 2020
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is concise, clear, easy to read, and is well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical or spelling errors were discovered.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content added is well organized, with 3 major sections, and sub-headings to further break down these sections in more detail.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images were added. However, a chart was added about Zinc producing countries ranked by their output for 2018.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The chart is relatively well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The chart violates Wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The media added is laid out in visually appealing way

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?
 * Yes, the content added improved the overall quality of the article, as it expands on the information from the original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added is neutral, contains several reliable secondary sources, and is concise.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Images could be added for further understanding of major points.

Overall evaluation
The article is well written so far, however, there is still room for improvement.