User:Tandoori Jones/Zinc mining/Fadinaddeh 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? (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 it has been
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes there was no signs of any bias in any of the added content.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no, no biased claims were made.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Zinc smelting was a little underrepresented and maybe should have been discussed in a little more detail.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes all content is backed up and cited with reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There is a wide variety of sources discussing zinc mining.
 * Are the sources current? There are some articles cited from older dates like 1984 but the majority of the sources are dated 2006-2020
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all links checked worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? the added content has no spelling errors however in the first line of the history section too many commas are used.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not really, the picture presented is supposed to represent a zinc mine however it just looks like any random building. This image was not added by tandoori jones however.
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

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 definitely, there was not much to the article before.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The section on the global production of zinc and how much each country contributes.
 * How can the content added be improved? more research and more information?

Overall evaluation
The content added was very informative and interesting with little to no spelling or grammar errors and no sign of bias. There is also a big variety of reliable sources.