User:Pestogreen/Coulometry/Anonchemist 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.

OGeneral info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Pestogreen, K.michelberger

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

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

Yes, reflects the new content added by peer (however the change was very minor as I saw that most of the content was from the original article)
Has a clear introductory sentence, especially liked how Coulometry was clearly linked to the analytical electrochemistry discipline
Overall had a good sentence transitioning from the lead to the major sections, however I could also recommend having a sentence addressing that Coulometry also has applications in healthcare too as it looked like it was a major section in the article however the lead only mentioned that the body was covering the 2 Coulometry techniques
The lead is concise, I like that you are planning to address that the endpoint has various detection methods. it seems incomplete in the moment however I would also recommend addressing how the endpoint can be seen and what an endpoint indicates in Coulometry after it has successfully reached one (maybe it could be introduced in the lead then there could be a minor topic addressing it)

Content:

Yes, relevant to topic
Yes, up to date
For the lead article, it looks like it was missing how we can tell if a coulometric reaction reached completion/or an endpoint, a possible subsection or paragraph under potentiostatic Coulometry could be added explaining this topic
Doesn't address topic related to underrepresented populations

Tone and Balance:

Yes, it is neutral
No claims heavily biased towards a particular position
No over/underrepresentation
No persuasion, it does well in explaining the techniques in a neutral tone

Sources and References:

The in-text citations were consistent throughout the live article
Yes reflects the available literature on topic
Most sources from lines 2-5 were current however one of them that could be used with caution would be from line 4 as it dates back to the 1990s
Yes there was a variety of authors, however no heavily marginalized individuals included
The authors overall did a good job of finding primary sources, as they didn't refer to newspaper or secondary sources and mainly used peer-reviewed articles to write their article
Yes the links all work

Organization:

Yes overall clear and concise for all of the articles added. For the section in Coulometric Microtitrators, the part where it mentioned how it utilizes the electrolysis of water was a bit unclear. even though it mentioned the mechanism of the all reagents reacting, it doesn't briefly explain what the set up of the microtitrator looks like. to make this point more clear, I would recommend adding a sentence explaining the set up of it and also recommend adding images for the section to help illustrate this example.
No grammatical or spelling error, for the microtitrator section it wouldn't be necessary to have multiple transition words in the last two sentences. You can be able to remove "on the contrary" and just begin with microtitrators require...
Well-organized

Images + Media:

no images were included

New Articles Only:

Yes meets the requirements (there were 4 sources cited)
Accurately represents the literature
Follows the pattern of other articles well
Yes it consistently links to other wikipedia articles if there was already prior articles written on the topic

Overall Impressions:

The new article, especially the microtitrators section was very well written. It did a good job of referencing the authors and briefly describing how a microtitrator works. An improvement could be to add images to the sections that were being worked on as it could be a bit confusing to read through some of the parts of the microtitrator section without having a figure present (for that section, you can potentially add a diagram that shows what a microtitrator looks like then briefly explain the set up of it and connect it back to how it works)