User talk:Ajmaclaurin/Cubanite

The last two sentences of the intro seem to be extra information and are not needed to have an understanding of what Cubanite is. Otherwise, the intro is clear and covers the main characteristics that distinguish the mineral.

The Etymology and History section is very clear and concise. It is easy for the reader to understand. Good job

“Cubanite has been found in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, specifically class CI-chondrites, as well as in cometary samples from NASA’s Stardust spacecraft”- This sentence is unclear. It sounds as if the samples from other meteorites were found on the Stardust spacecraft instead of by the spacecraft. It could also be broken into two sentences.

The synthetic cubanite subheading should either be a full heading or the extra-terrestrial cubanite heading should be a subheading and both fall under a non-terrestrial heading.

The article is fairly well written and well organized. The headings and subject blocks make sense, but the article has flow as well. There feels like a bit of a science bias in that the wording is very science heavy. Even small words like “cometary” or “exogenous” could be swapped out for more common words in order for the average reader to walk away with a good understanding of the topic.

The Copper Isotope Analysis section feels unfinished and is wordy. Perhaps this could fit into a larger section of what cubanite is used for? Or it should be more rounded out to further explaining the methods mentioned. EVen linking NIR MS to the Near-infrared spectroscopy page or another appropriate page would help round out this section a bit more.

Your references look good and there appears to be an even balance of them throughout the article. May be of interest to you as it is the original description of the mineral. Overall this is a major improvement on the original article. Mickinahan (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)