User:Zwymmmm/Pyrolite/MJCato 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)
 * Zwymmmm
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Zwymmmm/sandbox2

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 content in the lead is good, but it doesn't flow very well. "The chemicial composition of the mid-ocean ridge basalt can be explained by a pyrolite source" doesn't make a lot of sense where it is; maybe consider putting that sentence at the end? It may be a good idea to just delete that sentence, as it doesn't really come up again later in the article.

Thank you for your suggestion! I agree that the sentence does not sounds nature. Hope the revised lead part is better now.

It may also be worth changing "the definition varies" to "the theoretical definition varies to separate it separate it from the sentence that follows. Right now it sounds like you are giving two definitions for the same thing?  There are also a few general grammar issues, but I'm not sure exactly how to edit that from here, and will be fixed shortly after you make a major edit.

After checking the original paper, I added some explanations to the definition variations, and deleted this original sentence.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
You could probably add some information on the connection to MORB basalts later in the article so it matches with the lead. You also have the sections separated incorrectly. Each different section should use the 'heading' font and should look like this:

Yeah, just revised the article follwoing the above suggestions. Basically link the connection to MORB basalt into the Shortcomings section, do you feel if I need to add more contents regarding MORB?

Chemical composition and phase transition
The content is thorough and recent, but it may be worth reading through and making sure that the sentences flow well together. You definitely get better as you go, but it does feel choppy at times.

Thanks for pointing out. I polished the language and deleted some overly detailed sentences, do you feel it flows better? or if there are some sentences that can be improved?

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
This is all good, I don't really have any comments to make on this subject!

Thanks.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
THIS PART NEEDS SOME WORK! Your entire first two sections have almost no sources. I assume they fall under some of the sources that you have already listed, but you actually have to reference the sources within the paragraph (or at the end if it is one source for the entire section). Physical properties actually has zero sources listed; it is ok to link the same source twice if it is one form the lead section.

Just added more references, the reference in the physical properties is listed in figures, but it is worth to list reference in the main text.

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
This is going back to where the sentences could flow better, but the actual organization of the sections is good. The only part that I am confused by is the is the (1) and (2) at the end of the article; I am not sure how they fit into the rest.

I agree that the (1) and (2) look confusing. (1) and (2) would be merged into the sentences above them.

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
The images are almost perfect! You may want to link the 'phase diagram' page so that people understand what a phase diagram is.

Sure.

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 looks good. The only major change that needs to be done is the headings issue that I mentioned above.

Just revised the article based on the above opinions. appreciate if you have any other advices for the 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
The information looks to be pretty exhaustive for what a normal person would need with good sources that they can look at for further reading, that is good!. The primary issue that can be fixed, again, is the flow and some grammatical fixes.

Thanks for your reviews! I just revised the old article from contents to grammar, it would be great if you have further suggestions.