User:Zitong Lin1996/Rare-earth element/Dan-is-gniess 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? Zitong Lin1996
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Zitong Lin1996/Rare-earth element

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead was not changed as the article was an addition to an original one. The part has an introduction sentence and is clearly concise and explains what the section is talking about. There is a sentence which explains what the article is going to talk about and there is information present from what the lead states. The lead is detailed and not over stated.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
My peer added a few sentences talking about the research done in 2014 on the rare earth elements and then explains it thoroughly later in the article. All the content is up to date, also all the sources work and are reliable and up to date. There is not any information present that shouldn't be there.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral and there is no biased information mentioned.

There are not any claims that seem to be very biased. Most of the viewpoints are presented well and also explain really well the main idea. It persuades the reader with the article mentioned and shows some pros and cons (mostly cons) on the human health interations.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
All the new content has reliable sources and each paragraph and statement is backed up with a citations. All the sources are thorough and work when clicked on. They also are reliable and come from papers. They reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are current and fit in. All the links work.

One point to mention, there should be a few more helping words. There are a lot of words I do not know what they mean and there are not any definitions.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
It is easy to read and concise. There are no errors and the content is very organized. There are some longer paragraphs that can be shortened or broken up. The information is clear and concise though, but the paragraphs are too long.

Images and Media
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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images.

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?

New Article Evaluation
It is not a new article.

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
My peer edited and added clear and concise information and has improved the overall quality of the article. There is no biased information. It is very well structured and clear and organized in a few paragraghs which explain and are to the point. Some things that can be improved are to add more citations and also explain a few of the words. Some sentences are hard to understand. The links are up to date and so are the papers. Also, the article clearly explains and is a great addition to the original rare earth element page. Overall, the article is very well written and there are not many negative aspects about it.