This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) MJCato
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MJCato/Jbilet Winselwan meteorite
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?
I think the position of the Lead has a small problem. It may be better to put the Lead above the "Contents" box. The Lead does reflect the new content added by my peer. The first sentence in the Lead clearly describes the topic. Overall, the Lead is concise, but correctly reflects the major sections in the article.
- I actually have no idea why it was put there in the sandbox mode. I think it may be due to how I dealt with the title, being that it is a heading and it auto-generated the contents above all headings. It is fixed in the version that I ported to normal Wikipeda, as the title of the entire page is correct.
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?
All the content added are closely relevant to the topic and up-to-date. Here are some suggestions for the content:
- When talk about the major silicate composition, my peer used Fa and Fs to describe the olivine and pyroxene. However, as a general reader, I may be confused about the meaning of Fa and Fs. It may be better to use whole name not the abbreviation. In addition, pyroxene has many endmembers, personally I don't think Fs40-61 is enough. What are the other 39-60 % parts?
- In the composition parts, it may be better to show the reader the chemical elements, such as the major elements, trace elements etc.
- I am considering this a template for how many meteorite pages can be put together, so I am trying to link as clearly to as much explanation for the nomenclature as possible, as I think explaining the nomenclature in every meteorite page will be overkill. The Olivine page has a very good explanation for how the Fo abbreviation works, but I am actually not sure now the best way to explain the pyroxene. ***I changed the link so it goes to the Enstatite page, which has a good explanation of En/Fs notation*** In meteoritics, we are primarily concerned with the Fe/Mg content, so we use Fs in relation to the En-Fs solid solution in publications.
- one of the issues with meteorites is that they don't always have easily accessible major/trace element data. Most public data for meteorites comes from the initial classifications which are published on the met bull ( eg). I think it would be interesting to have a table with major/trace elements somewhere in the article, though.
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?
The content added are neutral. All the claims did not bias toward a specific position. The viewpoints are presented evenly. My peer did very well considering the tone and ballance.
- Thank you :)
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?
Most of the references are recently published scientific papers. The sources are reliable and current. All the references come from different research groups. The links work well. A small problem is that the format of some references may need to be revised. The data should only leave years. In addition, it seems for reference #3, some strange things happened.
- it was not happy that I did not include all 15 authors for reference 3. The error has been removed for the main wikipedia site.
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?
Most of the content added are well written. My peer divided all the contents into different sections and make it clear to readers. A problem is that a lot of abbreviations are not defined in this article. Although readers can use the link go to another article to understand some of them, those abbreviations make it difficult to understand some claims for general reader.
Grammatical and spelling errors: 1. some references numbers are behind ".". 2. In the infobox, the found date is May 2013, whereas in the history section the date is June 2013. The information is inconsistent.
- See content discussion above. Because the find was in Western Sahara, the the find and reporting date are a bit separated.
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?
The pictures are just the photos of the meteorites. It help readers to understand it. One small question is that the two images seem to not have much difference for me. Maybe only leaving one is good enough.
- I wanted to include a picture of both the interior and exterior of a fragment. It may be better if I specify that in the description of the images.
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?
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?
After my peer changed this article, it becomes more complete. The content makes reader understand the meteorites from different aspects. The overall impressions are this article is professional now, but some concepts are a little difficult to understand as a general reader. My peer did a good work on this article!
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) MJCato
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MJCato/Jbilet Winselwan meteorite
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?
I think the position of the Lead has a small problem. It may be better to put the Lead above the "Contents" box. The Lead does reflect the new content added by my peer. The first sentence in the Lead clearly describes the topic. Overall, the Lead is concise, but correctly reflects the major sections in the article.
- I actually have no idea why it was put there in the sandbox mode. I think it may be due to how I dealt with the title, being that it is a heading and it auto-generated the contents above all headings. It is fixed in the version that I ported to normal Wikipeda, as the title of the entire page is correct.
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?
All the content added are closely relevant to the topic and up-to-date. Here are some suggestions for the content:
- When talk about the major silicate composition, my peer used Fa and Fs to describe the olivine and pyroxene. However, as a general reader, I may be confused about the meaning of Fa and Fs. It may be better to use whole name not the abbreviation. In addition, pyroxene has many endmembers, personally I don't think Fs40-61 is enough. What are the other 39-60 % parts?
- In the composition parts, it may be better to show the reader the chemical elements, such as the major elements, trace elements etc.
- I am considering this a template for how many meteorite pages can be put together, so I am trying to link as clearly to as much explanation for the nomenclature as possible, as I think explaining the nomenclature in every meteorite page will be overkill. The Olivine page has a very good explanation for how the Fo abbreviation works, but I am actually not sure now the best way to explain the pyroxene. ***I changed the link so it goes to the Enstatite page, which has a good explanation of En/Fs notation*** In meteoritics, we are primarily concerned with the Fe/Mg content, so we use Fs in relation to the En-Fs solid solution in publications.
- one of the issues with meteorites is that they don't always have easily accessible major/trace element data. Most public data for meteorites comes from the initial classifications which are published on the met bull ( eg). I think it would be interesting to have a table with major/trace elements somewhere in the article, though.
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?
The content added are neutral. All the claims did not bias toward a specific position. The viewpoints are presented evenly. My peer did very well considering the tone and ballance.
- Thank you :)
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?
Most of the references are recently published scientific papers. The sources are reliable and current. All the references come from different research groups. The links work well. A small problem is that the format of some references may need to be revised. The data should only leave years. In addition, it seems for reference #3, some strange things happened.
- it was not happy that I did not include all 15 authors for reference 3. The error has been removed for the main wikipedia site.
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?
Most of the content added are well written. My peer divided all the contents into different sections and make it clear to readers. A problem is that a lot of abbreviations are not defined in this article. Although readers can use the link go to another article to understand some of them, those abbreviations make it difficult to understand some claims for general reader.
Grammatical and spelling errors: 1. some references numbers are behind ".". 2. In the infobox, the found date is May 2013, whereas in the history section the date is June 2013. The information is inconsistent.
- See content discussion above. Because the find was in Western Sahara, the the find and reporting date are a bit separated.
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?
The pictures are just the photos of the meteorites. It help readers to understand it. One small question is that the two images seem to not have much difference for me. Maybe only leaving one is good enough.
- I wanted to include a picture of both the interior and exterior of a fragment. It may be better if I specify that in the description of the images.
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?
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?
After my peer changed this article, it becomes more complete. The content makes reader understand the meteorites from different aspects. The overall impressions are this article is professional now, but some concepts are a little difficult to understand as a general reader. My peer did a good work on this article!