User:Anne181625/Topaz/Houdarar13 Peer Review

Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: 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? 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? 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? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) 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? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? 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? 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? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? 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? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Saraellacott/Topaz/Houdarar13 Peer Review

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saraellacott/Topaz/Houdarar13_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Topaz

Evaluate the drafted changes

Clarity

I think you did a good job in improving clarity.

"Although it is often associated with golden yellow and blue, it comes in a variety of colors, including colorless. The rarest are natural pinks, reds, and delicate golden oranges, sometimes with pink hues." A prime example of making it more clear. Less wordy and more concise. good job.

One criticism:

"Topaz is an accessory mineral to felsic igneous, sedimentary, and hydrothermal rocks"

Hydrothermal does not fall in the same categorization convention of igneous and sedimentary rocks. Perhaps include hydrothermally altered rocks. Maybe a reader not familiar with geology would think a hydrothermal rock is an actual naming convention. I know what you mean, but perhaps changing it to 'hydrothermally altered country rock'.

Sources

Excellent sources: Gemological institute of america, multitude of academic journals,

Very good textbook, Good Job!**Nesse, William D. (2017). Introduction to mineralogy (3rd ed.). New York Oxford: Oxford University

I know it wasn't you who added these sources;

But please verify this:

1) A ranch in Texas which claims you can go topaz hunting. Compared to all highly academic sources this one seemes less relialble. https://web.archive.org/web/20070117051633/http://www.masontxcoc.com/topaz.htm

Maybe considering sourcing info about topaz Occurence in Texas Somewhere more reliable.

Balanced Coverage

I think you choosing the mineralogical section was a greta choice as you gave a geological context of what the mineral is. The article was already saturated by historical and social significance of the mineral around the world.

Perhaps on top of the mineralogy part, you can add the genetic processes of what is thought to create topaz. why does it form in pegmatites? Is there a reason fluorine and not any other volatiles are in the Crystal lattice....

Also to have a even more balanced coverage perhaps create a small section on the economics of topaz. Does it have spot price or an open market, economics of synthetic vs natural? who are the companies in the space ? is it artisanal or large companies? Questions of these sort will help balance out the social meaning of topaz with the more science technical side.

Structure

Structure is good. Maybe consider moving the mineralogical section further up to beside etymology and history sections. Mineralogy is what defines the mineral its self so i think it is very important for the reader to understand what is it made out of and what differentiates it from commonly mistaken with quartz.

Add more pictures of all the different colours of topaz. Maybe add a picture of clear topaz being made into blue quartz is possible.

Neutrality

Very neutral. This topic by its nature does not have much controversial topics and does not provoke any debate. There was no moment when i was reading the article I had a feeling a certain idea or ambiance was trying to be rubbed on me. Perhaps add section or few sentences giving more acknowledgement to child labourers who go out to find these gemstones and then often sold at relatively low prices to jewelry manufacturers. This would shed more light on the ethics of gemstone mining.

Suggestions for improvement

1) Even though it is primarily a gemstone. It does have slight industrial uses which you mentioned. Perhaps add the part that it can be added as a flux for steel making. Especially beneficial because we learned about fluxes in week 6.

2) Important: November birthstone never mentioned.

3) Perhaps explain the different localities. Example brazil produces imperial topaz, pakistan purple, russia clear etc...

4) Include a brief explanation on why there are different colours

5) why are cavities filled up and why do they form in topaz?

Strength and weakness:

I think the strengths of Anne's paper is the organization, clarity and credibility of sources. The article flows well and makes sense to me as reader. None of the sections have any rambling and there position within the article (on the most part) logically make sense. Where Anne may improve, is further elaborating on industrial uses of topaz. Anne may further elaborate on mining methods and who owns property rights to Topaz producing locals. A genetic model on how topaz forms within pegmatites would be a plus. Lastly, I would like to see the economics of mining topaz and who are the winners and the losers of these operations.