User:Yaatch/Partial melting/Jackaloping Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Yaatch


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Yaatch/Partial melting


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Relevance and Clarity

The lead section is good, but a little unclear in some sections - the line that describes the new magma being richer in the melted minerals may be better if it were reworded to describe it as a higher proportion, as currently it could potentially be interpreted to mean that more of these minerals are being created through the melting process.

The line about conduction is a little difficult to read as the opening sounds somewhat like it is contradicting itself ("insufficient driver capable of") - it might be better to reword this as just "insufficient to" or "incapable of"?

Overall, the article is well written, using clear language or utilising links to the associated Wikipedia articles when using specific jargon. The lead is nicely broken up into fairly even sections which are conducive to easier reading and highlights each of these key points before continuing into the main article. The addition of the composition section is good as it indicates the importance of the source rock and how it will affect the end product, as well as the how the conditions can affect different source materials in different ways.

Neutral position

The draft uses unbiased language and utilises sources from a variety of publications and authors, giving it a balanced approach to the topic. The article also remains broad and does not focus on individual examples, keeping the information applicable to any environments that meet the required conditions, but still uses some examples as useful reference points (Yellowstone) in order to illustrate the points being made. In the Volatiles section, the occurrence of conflicting opinions of authors is highlighted, giving the reader a balanced view.

Bibliography The sources are from accredited publications and are peer-reviewed, inkeeping with the scientific review process. For the sections that have yet to be expanded upon, there is an explanation of needing to find more sources, showing thorough research.

The section on the influence of pressure & temperature could do with a source on the relationship between the two, partly just for potential further reading on this topic for the reader, as well as to back up this information.