User:BASkeel/User: Joppenhe1/sandbox/BASkeel Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
Joppenhe1
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Mostly. It would be nice if the lead had a sentence about the synthesis of these species
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, the intro sentence gives a good description of the subject matter.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Currently, no. This is one area for improvement.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, the lead section contains only information present in the article as well.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead is sufficiently concise to provide a quick overview of trivalent group 14 radicals
Lead evaluation
[edit]Overall, the lead serves as a good introduction to the chosen topic. In particular, the brief discussion of Type A, B, and C tetrel radicals serves to orient the reader toward the subject well.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- The content of this article is all relevant to the topic. In particular, understanding radical species requires we think about the ways in which we can generate and characterize these species--both of which concepts are discussed in this article.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, the article is up to date and includes some of the most recent developments in the field, including the successful synthesis of a trivalent lead radical.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- All content currently included in the article certainly belongs there. A reactivity section of the article would be a nice addition, but is not necessarily within the scope of this particular article.
Content evaluation
[edit]As written, the current content sufficiently describes the synthesis and characterization of trivalent group 14 radicals. A discussion of the reactivity of these species would be nice, but is not strictly necessary. Smaller comments include those pertaining particularly to the methyl radical, which is described as a Type B radical, despite the single electron occupying a 100% p-orbital character orbital, which should make it a Type C radical.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, the author describes the state of trivalent group 14 radicals in terms of prevailing opinion in the literature.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- There are no obviously different viewpoints within the field, and this article does not attempt to differentiate potentially incongruous viewpoints.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]In general, this article is very readable, and does not bias any one viewpoint over another.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, the article cites a number of primary studies, in addition to several review articles covering the topic.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes. In particular, the use of review articles ensures that the information available in the article is thorough,
- Are the sources current?
- With exception of some sources that must necessarily be old, yes. This article represents the field as it currently stands.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, the links all work.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The references in this article are a good mix of primary literature and review articles.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, the article is written at a level such that an intelligent non-expert could parse the content.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- There are some minor typographical errors here and there (missed parenthesis at the end of the article). These are very minor issues, however.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, the article is broken down into chemically rational sections. Specifically, sections individually address how we make tetrel radicals, and then how we study them.
Organization evaluation
[edit]The article is organized into sections which clearly delineate the important aspects of trivalent group 14 radicals, and does not require any restructuring.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes. The images help the reader to understand the electronic structure of these molecules. This is important, as describing electronic structure solely in words can be challenging.
- Are images well-captioned?
- Yes, the images all have descriptive captions which make it clear what the images are depicting.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- They are all original images, and adhere to copyright regulation.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes.
Images and media evaluation
[edit]The images added in this article are visually pleasing and help to convey the content.
For New Articles Only
[edit]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?
- Yes--radicals are important species in chemistry, and this article details one important family of radicals. The importance of this field is underscored by the use of multiple review articles by the author in constructing this content.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- Much of the field is captured in the review articles this article cites, which in themselves are good overviews of the current literature. In this sense, the sources for this article are thorough.
- 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?
- Yes, this article has qualities that are similar to other chemistry articles on wikipedia.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- Yes, this article links to several different pages.
New Article Evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- This is a new article, but the content it features is high quality.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- The discussion of factors which contribute to the stability of trivalent group 14 radicals is particularly good, and helps contextualize why significant advances in this field have not been made until recent years.
- How can the content added be improved?
- The article could potentially be improved in a couple ways. Specifically, examples of notable trivalent group 14 radicals (preferably in graphical format) would give the reader a more sound idea of what these important molecules are.
Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall, this is a good article, but could use a little more content.