User:Chemicalbonding/Substitution reaction/Draco741 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?

ChemicalBonding

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chemicalbonding/Substitution reaction
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Substitution reaction

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead:

Lead already reflected the content the author added due to the fact that he mainly added and clarified information. The lead gives a very brief explanation of the entire articles with each section being mentioned at least one time. It is concise and well written, if new information is added the lead should be updated but it is informative enough.

Content:

The content is very relevant to the topic at hand. The majority of the information added is clarification information and addition of some new information. The pictures added were very useful in allowing a better understanding of the mechanism/process through which this is done. Something that should be mentioned in nucleophilic substitution is how the nucleophile can actually be the leaving group in some molecules an example being if a halogen attacks a tertiary alcohol.

Might want to mention what conditions aromatic substitution works best in. (Kind of extra information, could put it in but would also be fine if left out.)

Tone/Balance:

The tone in all of the information in the draft is neutral. Information is mostly just facts therefore it is hard to have a position on substitution reactions.

Sources & References:

Sources for first 2 changes in mechanisms are good. References for nucleophilic acyl substitution should be added, just one should be okay.

Organization:

The content added is easy to read, concise and efficient in delivering the information. The organization is done well, however if there is not going to be more information added to the substituted compounds section, the sentence could be moved to another section so that there is not another whole section containing just one sentence. The best place would most likely be in the lead.

Images and Media:

The images help understanding the information a lot. They help clarify and provide visual support for the information. A picture showing an example of aromatic nucleophilic substitution might be good but it is not necessarily needed. The captions for the images are well done and concise. Layout of the images is also done well.

Overall Impression:

In general, the article is readable by the target audience, a demographic that do not have university knowledge of chemistry. However, some of the language used should be changed to help understanding. Words such as carbocations, nucleophile, and electrophile should be explained or linked so that the audience can have quick access to the definitions. A brief explanation such as, "a carbon with a positive charge on it", for a carbocation. The use of pictures helps with the definitions but it can be hard to identify which parts of the reaction you are talking about in the pictures.

Overall, the edits are written well in order to be understood by a non-scientific community, and the content is concise and gives the information without bias.