User talk:Fgraba/sandbox2
Article Peer Review
[edit]Overall, I think the edits you made to the article add necessary and helpful information that was lacking from the original and tie it together into a much more comprehensive piece! The first section is a bit scattered as it originally made up the whole article and could benefit from a little reorganization to collect the thoughts. Your additions are well-formatted and follow logically from the rest of the content. A couple general comments to apply to the whole article: you could use more WikiLinks, especially on more esoteric or technical words; the number of sources used is rather few and entire sections hinge on just one source, so it would be better to have a variety to support the points you make.
- Lead section. I think the lead section discussed what nitratine is well and clarifies any additional names -- one thing that could be clarified better is what exactly is saltpeter? Is it nitratine, is it potassium nitrate? The wording is ambiguous and the Saltpeter War article only serves to confuse this more. You might consider bumping the information about its hardness / crystal structure to its own section on Structure, then including a line about nitratine use to serve as an introduction into topics discussed in the rest of the article.
- Structure. The structure of your additions is great, and flows well from what was previously discussed and into each other. However, I think the content from the original article is a bit scattered and jumbled. I address this a little below in "Line Items", but you might consider adding additional sections after the first paragraph for "Structure / Chemical Properties" and "Natural Occurrences / Deposits".
- Balanced coverage and neutral content. You don't linger on any one topic too long, which is excellent! The coverage seems balanced and equitable, with the exception of mentions of the Saltpeter War and War of the Pacific -- these additions are dropped rather unexpectedly and aren't explained particularly well. The majority of the article is only referenced off one source, however, which could lead to an imbalance in perspectives represented. I'm not sure what published literature is available on this subject, however. Overall, you avoid presenting any opinions and lend good coverage to every point in the article.
- Reliable sources. As mentioned before, you appear to lean a little too heavily on one source -- consider adding more to diversify the perspectives referenced. The main source you've drawn information from appears to be very solid and reputable though. The content of the "Pressure Dissolution Seams" article appears well-informed but the citation of a Google site could maybe be better -- has this group who owns the website published a paper on their work that could be cited? Typically, published documents are better as it (usually) means that a journal has peer reviewed the information for accuracy.
Line Items
- Near end of P1: "quite soft and light" sounds subjective, maybe replace "quite" with "relatively" or similar
- P1: Source for hardness and specific gravity?
- P1: Is nitratine saltpeter or is potassium nitrate saltpeter? It seems somewhat ambiguous from the wording
- P2: WikiLinks would be helpful for several words that I don't recognize, like "scalenohedral", "efflorescence"
- P2: why is "puddle" italicized?
- P3 and P4 order should be swapped, smoothens the transition from talking about structure to natural deposits
- P6-P8: You're only referencing one source throughout ("Nitrates and Nitrites") so the citations lack diversity across the field. I'd recommend finding another couple sources that could back this one up
- P8: World War I should be capitalized and WikiLinked
- P8: Link to "Shank's process", "tail gases", "nitric acid plants", etc. if possible
- Minor, but it would look a little nicer if you put the chemical reactions in an equation block. Also, probably isn't necessary to cite every single equation -- the preceding sentence provides the textual support for them