User:Nkaba224/Hecla Mining/Joq Oliver 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? Nkaba224 Link to draft you're reviewing

Hecla Mining (reviewing the Revisions tab) Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Hecla Mining

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hello,

I got assigned to review your article. You did not have a sandbox for it, which makes it difficult to follow your edits.

You are using the main article as a draft page and have deleted most of the previous work left there from other Wikipedians.

I can't tell if this was intentional or an accident.

Overall good work; it looks really good and isn't hard to read. One of the most significant issues I see is the lack of good references. There is a sentence, "With Lester Randall as president, the company soars higher because he reconciled Hecla's balance sheet and sold its interest in exchange for stock"

Where you cite a previous version of the Hecla Mining page (that you deleted), it is not a good idea, in general, to use another wiki article as references.

The section on Ore Processing is excellent. I'm just unsure sure if you can use a mining companies web page as your primary source. I would check if the Carleton library, if any, reports back up their claims.

The work on the lead section great, and the way it was redone provides the information needed. It seems to cover all the information in your copy of the page.

The content is good, but I would think about adding some of the previously there work. Potentially a list of deposits in the world would help the reader get a sense of where Hecla Mining takes place.

Sources and References

I would look to the Sources left by Kuzey Gunesli.

I am personally using 43-101 reports in my arctic and have found them very informative.

Overall keep up the excellent work. The information is there, and I enjoy your writing style. I wasn't able to find any overt grammar and spelling mistakes.

Using more credible sources can go a long way.