User talk:Marcusmembrere/sandbox

Peer review for article draft Bituminite
Bituminite Review notes: This draft is still very short. The physical properties section seems incomplete. Considering this article is very bare prior to this users additions I think they are doing a very good job of providing the basic information. Having read this article I feel that I know what Bituminite is. The article while still incomplete is on the right track to creating a valuable and well referenced page. I acknowledge that this is still a draft but I think that this article could use more information on its value as a resource and the difference to bitumen could be more explicitly stated and explained. Overall a good beginning to the article writing process. On the right track. '''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

Yes the user has done good work of finding basic information on bituminite. None of the information is out of place.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

The article is neutral and presents an encyclopedic viewpoint.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, the information is scientific and accurate.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

In text citation [1] is a leads to “Classification of liptinite” I assume but this is not clear. Perhaps review your citations and references to make sure they clearly link to the proper article and source. Most of the sources are very good primary sources for bituminite and oilshales. However are we allowed to cite other Wikipedia articles as sources for information presented? Perhaps go find the original source in the article you are citing.

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

See above. Most of the sources are excellent scientific sources on the subject matter.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''

While some of the sources are old they are still relevant and appropriate to the subject matter. Perhaps finding more recent sources would provide good perspective?

--Belangier (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation "Volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposits"
- The opening statement indicates that VMS deposits are "mainly copper-zinc" contradict the metal zonation sub-category that states VMS consist of over 90% iron sulfide - The opening statement does not correlate with information from the source it references [1] - Many of the opening paragraphs are not cited to references, questioning legitimacy of some statements, i.e "As a class, they represent a significant source of the world's copper, zinc, lead, gold and silver ores, with cobalt, tin, barium, sulfur, selenium, manganese, cadmium, indium, bismuth, tellurium, gallium and germanium as co- or by-products." - In the genetic model section, information regarding tectonic environment should be mentioned - Sources with links were reliable, mostly research papers or scholarly articles - Provide a link to "feeder zone", or define it for clarification - Include a diagram to better understand morphology and metal zonation sub-categories - Very information heavy and the information is sophisticated in the first half of the article, second half of the article relies on examples and requires more in depth explanations - The article is not rated, but is included in WikiProjects: Volcanoes and Mining - Would like to see a separate category based on the exploitation regarding: mining, regulations, economic value, etc. - This article talks aboutVMS deposits in a way we have not gone into depth within this class. Though topics of mining, sulfides and chemistry have been covered in this class, the article goes into depth about the physical attributes and forming processes of the VMS deposits

'''Peer Review '''

For my peer review I have selected the article “bituminite”. The original article is only a few short sentences, so there is clearly a large amount of work that needs to be done for it to be presentable.

To start with, I think the outline for the article is well done and if completed as planned the article will go over the most important points without becoming an overwhelming amount of work. If you are looking to add more to it, a section or paragraph on the most common methods of bituminite mining, or the environmental impact of bituminite may be worth adding, however, both would be a far lower priority than the information you currently have planned.

For the actual article, the first sentence of “Bituminite is an autochthonous maceral that is a part of the liptinite group in lignite, that occurs in petroleum source rocks that originates from organic matter such as algae which has underwent alteration or degradation from natural processes such as burial” looks like a bit of a run-on sentence to me. Personally, I would break it up into 2 sentences by replacing the comma with a period, with the first sentence stating it’s classification and the second stating where it occurs. I would also add a comma after the words “natural processes”.

For the next sentence, the word “fine-grained” has a typo, and the ending of “and also occurs in sedimentary rocks” could potentially be made into its own sentence so the wording is a bit clearer (does it also occur as “fine-graned groundmass, laminae or elongated structures that appear as veinlets” in sedimentary rocks?

Next, any specific properties which are different between bitumen and bituminite could be stated rather than only stating that they exist. The words “different kinds of visible and fluorescent lights.” are also a bit vague, can only specific forms of light be used to identify the bituminite? Finally, it may be worth adding the differences between the 3 kinds of bituminite.

For the properties section, it may be worth adding more properties. Any of the following which you can find could be applicable. 1.	Color 2.	Streak 3.	Hardness 4.	Cleavage or Fracture 5.	Crystalline Structure 6.	Diaphaneity or Amount of Transparency 7.	Tenacity 8.	Magnetism 9.	Luster 10.	Odor 11.	Taste 12.	Specific Gravity

For the occurrence section, the first sentence seems a bit vague. It may be clearer to write which specific environments can create bituminite rather than other maceral minerals. A section on where modern bituminite deposits can be found could also be potentially added.

Most of the references seem credible, although Wikipedia should not be used as a source for another Wikipedia article. If possible, you can check the citation for the specific piece of information you used from the other article and use that if it’s also credible.

Overall the original article is incredibly short, so therefore a massive amount of information could be added to it. While I tried to add suggestions for new information where possible, adding everything would be impractical. I agree with the information you have chosen to include in the article in your outline, and filling this out should be the top priority. As for potential additions, I personally would add to the properties section first if any information on that is available, and then add specific locations of bituminite/where it’s mined to the occurences section if possible.

Peer Review 2
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything is relevant to the article topic and there was nothing distracting or misplaced within the article.

Is the article neutral?

The article maintains neutral throughout and has no bias.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There are no viewpoints that are over or underrepresented.

Check a few citations.

You are currently missing source 1 and 4. You should not use Wikipedia as a source, I would recommend looking at the reference section on those Wikipedia pages however for a legitimate source.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

See previous comment on citations. Most of the facts are cited but remember to put citations at the end of the sentence not in the middle.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

All the information seems to be up to date. The initial article was very small and I feel that you did a good job at expanding it.

--Carson209 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)