User talk:Wah-hat/Ultrapotassic igneous rocks
Emily's Peer Review :)[edit]
1) Lead Section
The lead section is very concise and includes lots of important detail. It equally references all parts of the article, but it could have more reference to the "Economic Importance" section. Even though it doesn't mention the economics section, the lead section stills gives an excellent introduction to the article with fantastic detail.
2) Structure
The structure of the article is very clear, and I enjoyed the various lists in the article. The addition of all of these examples of ultrapotassic igneous rocks helps to show the reader exactly what they are. The only comment I have on the structure is that there could be more of a transition between "Types of Ultrapotassic Rocks" and "Economic Importance". Maybe there could be a section on what the uses of ultrapotassic igneous rocks? This might help flow into the economics section. Overall, the structure was excellent and very easy to follow.
3) Balance of Coverage
The coverage of the article is equally balanced between all view points. There does not seem to be any perspectives that have been left out, although it could be useful to add some information/references in the economics section as to why the minerals in ultrapotassic igneous rocks are so valuable (like maybe a table that shows prices of each mineral?) Overall, the article is equally balanced among perspectives.
4) Neutral Content
The language is nonbiased and does not try to persuade the reader to agree with a certain perspective. The word choice is mostly neutral, although there are some words (like "perhaps", "probably", and "may contain") that could be removed in order to sound more professional. These words add a bit of uncertainty to the article that takes away from the article's neutrality. Otherwise, the word choice is concise and unbiased.
5) References
All of the references are from peer-reviewed journals that are reliable and valid sources. Each of the references is equally used throughout the article. However, it seems like there are lots of sentences that could use a citation at the end. For citation 3 (Stephen Foley and Angelo Peccerillo, Potassic and ultrapotassic magmas and their origin, Lithos, v. 28, p. 181-185 (1992)), there was no hyperlink attached for the article. It might be useful to add a link so it is easier for readers to find the resource. Overall, the resources were very interesting and relevant to the article. Emily.white5352 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)