User:Aliaksands/Silylation/PrevailingChemist 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?

Aliaksands and MAPugh

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

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

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, the lead has been updated as they have included what they will add to the lead.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- I think the sentences they have included does breifly describe Protection Chemistry under Use of Siliyation. But I don't think they have described the major section "Of metals." I also think they haven't provided an overview of "Enolate Trapping."
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No it doesn't.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- I think what they have included is concise and tells the readers of a general overview of what is to come.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, the content added is relavent.
Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, I think the content added is up-to-date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I don't think there is content that is missing or that does not belong.

Tone and Balence

Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, the content added is neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, there are no claims that are biased.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, the content added does not persude a reader to favor one positon or away from another.

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- No, not all new content is backed up by references. After the sentence, "Silylation can also be used to trap reactive compounds for isolation and identification uses" under "Enolate Trapping," the information is not backed up by reference(s).
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
- I don't think the first reference backs up the first sentence of the lead, as the first reference does not have that information presented.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- I don't think the sources are thorough since a reference should back up the first sentence of the lead. I also think source(s) under "Enolate Trapping" is needed.
Are the sources current?
- Yes, I think the sources are current.
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.)
- I think a better reference to replace the first reference is needed. I think you should replace it with a peer-reviewed journal article in case editors remove it since it is a website.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- I'm unable to access the last two sources.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, I think the content added is concise, clear and easy to read
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No, I didn't see 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?
- Yes I think the content is well organized.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- The images that you are going to put I think will improve understanding of the Silylation.

Overall Impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes, the content added has improved the overall quality of the article. They talk about Protection Chemistry which makes the article feel more whole. But I think more information is needed to reach the word limit of 500-1000 words.
What are the strengths of the content added?
- The strenghts of the content is that they add on to why Siliyation is used so a beginner chemist keen in learning that topic can also learn about Protection Chemistry.
How can the content added be improved?
- I think more content should be added about how silyl groups can improve the thermal stability of molecules. Or pehaps make a connection of elements in Protection Chemistry towards thermal stability.