User:Chemistry Pink Lady/Carolyn R. Bertozzi/Blacksheep109 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
  • Chemistry Pink Lady
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Chemistry Pink Lady/Carolyn R. Bertozzi

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, flows better
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes great lead into the article
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • All sections are referenced in some manner
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • A few details that are useful to be left in
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Yes, makes it clearer

Lead evaluation

I noticed your contributions and thought they were useful and made things clearer.

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?

Content evaluation

I though the content added cleared up some points that could have been linked, but overall guided the reader better.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

I felt that the tone was unbiased. One thing to consider I saw one someone else was that they changed gender pronouns to the last name, which could make the article even further unbiased.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Added some sources from 2020 which keeps the information relevant and up-to-date! Checked a few links that appear to be working fine.

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?

Organization evaluation

The sections are clear and the headers were relevant to the information following.

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?

Images and media evaluation

None yet, but I assume they will be added soon.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

New Article Evaluation

n/a

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?

Overall evaluation

I think the content overall makes the article easier to read and follow. Consider adding a few more changes to the wording to ensure unbiased wording. I think you are off to a great start, but continue to look if there are any more possible -fasts to add.