User:PineappleCinnamon/Aromaticity/HighQualityWater 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?

PineappleCinnamon

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

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead - The lead includes a good introductory sentence but does not contain a brief introduction of the article sections. Reforming the lead section to include information about the following sections would lead to improvements.

Content - There doesn't appear to be much content that was actually added. Instead, content was cut and the edits that were made appear to be rewrites. The added sources are up to date, but a vast majority of the original content and sources was cut. Lots of the original content could be added back in to improve the article.

Tone and Balance - The tone is neutral and there is no apparent bias. However, the tone is also rather vague, with phrases like "After about 100 years", "tend to be", and "relatively recent discovery". Swapping these phrases out for facts will improve the article's tone.

Sources and References - The listed sources in the sandbox all appear to be from textbooks or informational websites. While textbooks are a decent source, it would be good to see other sources, especially some peer-reviewed academic papers.

Organization - The overall construction of the article is good, going from history to characteristics to compound varieties. The writing and grammar are good but aren't as factual as one would expect for a Wikipedia article.

Images and Media - There were no images or media added in the edits.

Overall Impressions - It appears that the article is being rewritten, when perhaps it doesn't need to be. Focus more on improving the areas of the original article than rewriting the information that is already there. Make sure to diversify the sources and look for peer-reviewed articles to add.