User:Draco741/Acyl halide/Publicscale 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?

Jaimin - @Draco741

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Draco741/new_sandbox

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acyl_halide

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hello Jaimin,

Below is my peer review for your draft for changes to the Wikipedia article - Acyl Halide.

Lead

N/A - There is no change to the lead for the Acyl Halide article in your sandbox draft. I look forward to your changes. I think the current lead is quite concise, but some context (e.g. where these functional groups can be find) can be added.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes.

- Gilman/Grignard reagents and LAH are valid reactants with Acyl Halides.

- I agree with you that "lachrymatory" is a grandstanding description.

- Explanation of hydrogen halide.

- The elaboration to explain that Acyl Halide itself is corrosive is good; the Nucleophilic Acyl Substitution explanation is good.

Is the content added up-to-date?

There do not seem to be new or up-to-date info for the original article nor the sandbox draft.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

- You can definitely add an image or two to showcase these chemicals.

- Can you explain the reagents (Grignard/Gilman) just very briefly for the general public? No one with a high school education knows them. I think simply by using chemical structures, they could understand a little better.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, I do not think this article has anything to do with subjective subjects.

Tone/Balance

Is the content added neutral?

The tone is quite neutral. I think the added explanations are needed.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

- You can explain the added reagents more.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources/References

Unfortunately, the references on the sandbox seem to be from the original article. I do not see any new links or references added to anything. Citing would help back your content.

Organisation

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

- I think "aromatic ketone" is more descriptive than "aromatic compound" (Reactions section). Aromatic compound is too general and is not the precise product of Friedel-Crafts Acylation.

- The added Gilman/Grignard reagents part is a good touch.

- I like the simplification done to the term "lachrymatory".

- Although I agree that "hydrohalic and organic acids" from the original article is extravagant and poorly worded, your explanation of hydrogen halide being "HX" is, in my opinion, a little excessive and does not quite get to point: hydrogen halide is a strong acid that is dangerous.

- I like your added explanation using the mechanism Nucleophilic Acyl Substitution; I do not like the statement "Most acyl halides are also corrosive and can cause severe burns to the skin and severely damage the eyes.". It can be written and structured better.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Gilman reagents, not "Gilmans reagent". Also do not use multiple "and" for a single sentence.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

No - please consider organising in sub-headings.

Overall

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

At this point, the sandbox draft improves the original article very slightly. I like some of the added explanations.

What are the strengths of the content added?

I enjoy the explanations you made; the Gilman/Grignard/LAH are good examples to give different products.

How can the content added be improved?

Please explain the reagents you added. They require better explanations - Grignard Reagent adding twice to give a tertiary alcohol is not trivial or intuitive. Also, I think adding LAH twice to acyl halide should yield a primary alcohol, not a secondary alcohol.

Please consider adding citations to your explanations and examples.

Please refer to other suggestions in the Organisation and Content sections.

Sincerely,

Winston - @Publicscale