User:Tandoori Jones/Zinc mining/Mattwells5 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? No, the lead has not been updated to include the new content, or the revised content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does describe this this articles topic is about, zinc mining and global zinc mine production.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The only description the lead mentions in the zinc mines section, and even then not well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead describes the largest zinc produces, but there is no section in the main article, but there is one that is added in the peer reviewed version.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is pretty concise, and maybe even underwhelming. It could definitely use a revamp to be more inclusive about the articles topics.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic as it discusses the history of zinc deposits as well and the current methods of extraction and production. This include the current global leaders in zinc production.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content added is up to date, with references and information from 1029 and 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some content that could be included are some examples of current zinc mines, environmental effects, and sustainability.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral. There was no point where i went that there was biased in the information provided.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no claims that are heavily biased. Most of the information provided is facts and descriptions of methods and history.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? I would say to may include a description about zinc trading in the global market, and how its linked to produciton.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No the content does not try and persuade the reader in any way. It is neutral throughout.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. This includes scholarly articles and the Britannica Encyclopedia.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yeah the sources are throughout, and they represent the topic discussed when sourced.
 * Are the sources current? There are about three current sources, the rest are a bit dated, ranging from the 1950's to 2006.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links worked when i checked them.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is well written and easy to follow. The topics are messy and easy to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical or spelling errors that i noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is well organised. Start off with the history allows for a background of the topic, followed by current extraction methods and relevance in today production of zinc. The topics are all broken down in a way where it supports the structure of the topic, make the information easier to understand.

Images and Media N/A
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?

For New Articles Only N/A
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? I think this is a significant improvement to the original article. There can still be more to add, but it is definitely looking better.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content is that it provides relevant information to how zinc is extracted and produced, with current numbers to back up the information.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would suggest adding a section on long term sustainability, productions connect to the global market, as well as the exploratory process for developing a zinc mine.