User talk:Pamela.im/sandbox

Hey Pam, you're doing great! CalderPatterson (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything was in good order and was following the trend of the topic chosen (Rare earth elements). I enjoyed the geological distribution section of the article. The step by step formation was very informative. nothing was distracting throughout the paper; paragraphs were well implemented and there were never large paragraphs that could potentially lead a reader off.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This is an informative article and does not seem to illustrate any sorts of bias. (neutral).

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The geological distribution and geochemical applications illustrate enough data. However, i feel there is some data missing from the light versus heavy rare earth elements just because they are very broad topics with lots of information. So in that case, maybe be more clear on the heading and what you want to talk about exactly.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? citations are not dated and seem to all be up to date. all links and sources work fine.

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? the references are science journals and seem to be strong reliable sources.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? all info is up to date. (good references) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marawanansassy (talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
-All of the information presented is clear and concise, as well as relevant to the topic of rare-earth minerals. It does read like a scientific article, which may be too dependent on the reader at times. It may be a good idea to flesh out some niche ideas in order to keep the common reader from getting lost. This could be fixed easily with some links throughout the text.

-You've done a great job at keeping a neutral tone of voice.

-The Geochemistry Applications is a great addition to the page, and is broken down into igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary very well. However, there is one reference used primarily throughout the section. It may be a good idea to go back and find additional resources for this part.

-On a final note, keep in mind who the audience for this article. This is going to be read by a random person with interest rather than a student or academic most of the time. Again, this can be fixed by briefly explaining a few things or linking them to other pages (Which you have done in the Geological distribution section very well)

-This is well researched, good job! Stephaube (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)