User:Millie Deroy/Aquamarine (gem)/Sam ERTH Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Millie Deroy

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Millie%20Deroy/Aquamarine_%28gem%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

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

Aquamarine (gem)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead paragraph for the sandbox has not been changed much so far. It is similar to the original, a good overview but perhaps lacking a little more detail. It also does not include all the information that is going to be discussed in the article. The introductory sentence is not bad - but not everyone will know what beryl is, maybe say gemstone or mineral, and then mention it is part of the beryl group. As mentioned before, the lead does not include all the sections/major headlines discussed in the article, so adding a little more information might make it a more solid lead section. The lead does include some information that it is not mentioned again in the article. Maybe mention "maxixe" again in the article, and go into a little more detail if it is an important component of the gemstone. The Lead is relatively concise, not too detailed, and a little short. A little more information may be helpful.

Content

There has been a few new contributions and I noticed new citations for the statements that did not have any before, and these are relevant to the topic and relatively up to date, (one being from the year 2022). A lot has not been added yet, so I would say some content is missing, a few other sections might be helpful in making the article more informative. Check out this source: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ijsrst.com/paper/4979.pdf, it has a some good information on the gemstone, and goes into detail about a few countries relation to it. A bunch of countries are mentioned in the "occurrence" section of the article, but it is just a list and does not have any other information, this source might help with that. It does not really address historically underrepresented populations, other than a few underrepresented countries briefly mentioned.

Tone and Balance

The (original) article is a little biased. There is an image of Queen Elizabeth, and mention of how the Romans and Chinese used the gem, but other countries are just brushed away and listed. The notable examples should be a little more diverse, adding on to this table would be helpful. The view points of other parts of the world are underrepresented. The content does not seem to sway the reader in one direction or the other, as this article is not a subjective article, but it should include a little more diversity to not seem limited.

Sources and References

The first sentence in the lead section is missing a citation. A few references have been changed and replaced with other sources, but have similar content. The new references are relative and the links all work. Some of them are a little old, (2003) but this topic isn't one that changes often, so it is not a big deal. Going by the names of some of the authors, I assume there is a bit of diversity in the references (reference 1 in the second list of sources.) The source list is good - new information from them should be added to the article, it is a little short and vague as of now. Check out Omni Carleton if you want to find some peer reviewed articles on the topic, it is where I found the source I linked on the "content" section of this review. The sources do reflect the content expressed in the article (such as the information about the hardness scale). '

Organization

The writing is good, no major spelling and grammatical errors. Perhaps add an appendix to outline some of the more complicated words for readers to refer to - might be helpful. The sections are organized and separated, though more sections should be added, and some sections have very limited information.

Images and Media

It seems like no new images and media have been added yet.

Overall Impressions

So far the article has been edited and the wording has changed and improved, content has been added but not a large amount as of yet - therefore the article is not that much more complete, but the writing is better. A few sentences have been added in some of the sections (such in the "in culture" section) that had interesting and relevant information followed by a reliable source. The new content added in the Occurrence section was also good, but more information could be added to this section.