User:Tandoori Jones/Zinc mining/Saraentwistle 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: Zinc mining

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? New article, therefore not applicable.
 * 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? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is neither concise or overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
Subpar, doesn't really explain what the article is going to get into. However this article is new and seems incomplete, so I assume the author plans on adding more to it, which would make the lead better.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It's hard to tell without doing further research myself about zinc mines. In the list of zinc mines, the author did not include the dates of their operation.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there should be further explanation of the process of zinc mining and extraction. A separate section after history perhaps about the methods used. There should also be an explanation of the use of the element Zinc, its economic value, and where it is most abundant to give readers a sense of its importance.

Content evaluation
Some information missing. The author has started on talking about the subjects I mentioned above, but not in enough detail. Nice job including history and a list of zinc mines.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Author has done good job of keeping information unbiased. Zinc mining isn't a hugely controversial topic so this is probably not a difficult thing to maintain.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are relevant, and reliable. Mostly literature publications on databases which is good. Some are quite old, but acceptable for what the content is on. The newest source cited is from 2008, which is not extremely recent. If the author were to include a section on zinc mining operation practices, they would need to use very recent sources to ensure accuracy.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part yes, except the author keeps saying zinc 'producers', and I think that the word extraction should be used instead. Zinc mines are extracting zinc from reserves already in the earth, it is not being produced from mines.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but more sections should be added. I already mentioned them above.

Organization evaluation
Good, but the author should try making sentences flow more smoothly. The sentences in the first paragraph all have the first three word's including 'zinc mine', maybe try changing around the sentence structure so it doesn't sound repetitive.

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.
 * 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? Kind of.

Images and media evaluation
The images don't enhance understanding, but they do relate to zinc mines. Maybe show a diagram of how zinc mines extract zinc, and a map of zinc mines across the world. The image of zinc ore grade % doesn't really relate to anything the author has written about, so consider writing a section that would better accompany that photo.

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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Probably not, I'm sure there are plenty other publications about zinc.
 * 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? Yes.

New Article Evaluation
Good start.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Good topic, I think it's something that is notable and important enough to justify having a Wikipedia article about it. I would suggest adding sections explaining the process of zinc mining in more detail, and including diagrams, as well as the significance of zinc mining in the economy around the world.