User:Zwymmmm/Pyrolite/Rhurlow 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) I am reviewing Wenyi's (Zymmmm) article
 * 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 lead is concise yet descriptive. The first sentence is a definition of pyrolite, which is exactly what people would want if they search this term. The lead gives a very general description of the composition and physical properties which are described in more detail in the following sections. The source and naming of the composition is mentioned in the lead, which is good.'''

The lead is well linked and cited.

Thank you !

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
'''The content is relative and up to date, with older and newer sources. Nothing is missing, I think most properties of Pyrolite are covered.'''

'''Chemical composition and phase transition - This is a good section. I think some minor things could make it better: For the elemental composition, you may need to change SIO2 to SIO2 and do that for all molecules. Also, wt.% is an abbreviation, so it needs that period after wt. This section could use more citations, and links (ex. perovskite) but overall it is good.'''

Sure, will correct them.

'''Physical properties of pyrolite - Also good, concise section. One note is that I think your figure numbers are out of order, Fig 3 might actually be Fig 2. Maybe you could give all the figures numbers for consistency. Maybe throw in some references in the text, not just the figures.'''

Good suggestions!

'''Other mantle rock models - Good section. Minor grammatical error - you say "The piclogite is similar as 20% olivine + 80% eclogite" which may be better if you say "Picologite composition is similar to 20% olivine + 80% eclogite". You may also need to capitalize the letter of the following sentence.'''

Good suggestions!

Maybe add in a See Also section and you can link to other important pages where people can read more about this subject!

Sounds good to me.

Also, your references need a heading.

No problem.

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 is neutral and not persuasive in any way.

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
'''Good, reliable sources. Some need the date fixed - you can see the red error next to those ones. The span a good timeline and have many different authors, which shows a good mixture of viewpoints.'''

Sure, will fix them.

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
'''Only minor grammatical errors that I mentioned above. Well written and concise! Well organized and gives the reader exactly what they want when researching pyrolite.'''

Thanks :)

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
'''Great images! Well captioned and they get the point across about the subject. These are well referenced and follow the copyright regulations.'''

Thanks for checking.

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
'''This is a new article. It meets the Notability requirements with great sourcing. It is well organized.'''

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
'''Great article! Just a few grammar errors. Overall, well written, informative, and concise.'''

Thank you for your review which both encourage and help me to improve the article !