User:Grapesszz/Potassium bitartrate/Stepagco Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Grapesszz, Ddoroc

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Grapesszz/Potassium bitartrate

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

Potassium bitartrate

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

You didn't edit the lead section, so there are no comments from me. I do think that the current lead section would require some editing now that you've added a few sections to the article. The last sentence of the lead section lists down some of the applications of potassium bitartrate but it only lists baking and cleaning when your article also includes medicinal and cosmetic use. Adding some of the properties mentioned in the occurrence sub-heading might also be a good idea.

Content

Most of the added content is placed in current sub-headings. By expanding these sections, your added content gives a better understanding of potassium bitartrate in general. The content was relevant to the topic and was up-to-date with the current understanding/uses of potassium bitartrate.

For the occurrence sub-heading, I especially liked how you gave a better explanation of how potassium bitartrate is formed. It gives a brief overview of its properties and how its crude product can be used for other purposes. However, your wine industry sub-heading starts with the sentence:

"In the wine industry, the absence of potassium bitartrate crystals is important as consumers often view the crystals as negative components of a wine."

It would be interesting if you could provide an explanation as to why consumers think these crystals are a bad sign in wines. This might sound intuitive, but I think it could improve the paragraph to make it sound relevant to your entire topic.

For the science behind baking sub-heading, you gave multiple examples of how cream of tartar is used in baking and great explanations on why they are used and how they work.

Tone and Balance

I think your tone was very neutral. I did not detect any signs of bias nor did it feel like you were trying to convince the reader to believe a certain standpoint. It was all very fact-based and straightforward. However, the sentence that I quoted regarding how consumers often view the crystals as negative components could potentially be misconstrued as an opinion, but I think if you give a credible source as to why consumers might think this way, then it can sound more neutral.

Sources and References

For the most part, your sources come from reliable secondary sources and the content accurately reflects them. They come from peer-reviewed articles, which establishes notability and reliability. However, I did notice that source #5 comes from a magazine article rather than a peer-reviewed article. This might be because it is impossible to find a better source, but judging by how your other sources were peer-reviewed, this potentially could still be amended. Since your sentence is a fact-based statement, there should be a more credible source elsewhere.

Also, it looks like your links to your references work as well, though some of them do appear to be have incomplete dates (only YYYY-MM) and your edition numbers say "2nd ed ed" for some of your references.

Organization

Since you have not migrated your work to the live article, I cannot say for certain if the flow of your ideas will be great, but I have a sense that it looks good enough. The language you used was concise and easy to read. I also did not notice any major grammatical or spelling errors.

However, I will say that the heading "Occurrence" is slightly ambiguous. It is hard to tell what type of information I can expect from this section, so I think renaming it could improve it. It lists the properties of potassium bitartrate as well as how it is "synthesized" in wine products. This section could benefit from having a broader heading and separating it into two sub-headings (e.g. properties and occurrence) and have wine industry as a sub-heading 2.

Additionally, the sub-heading "science behind baking" slightly breaks off from the current format of the article. All the other sub-headings were simply named (e.g. household use, cosmetics, etc.) so perhaps renaming it to just "Baking" would be better. It would also be good if you added this section right after household use since the two are somewhat related.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I think your revisions have been great! I especially liked how much more information you added in the occurrence section in the context of the wine industry. I also like the baking examples, which I was surprised was not already included in the original article. That was definitely a shortcoming of the original article that you managed to strengthen. For the most part, there are not a lot of major revisions that I think needs to be done—just some small edits here and there to make the reading experience more streamlined. Nice work! :)