User:Doodlepuppy123/Cyclopentadienyl anion/CorrelationSpec 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?

Doodlepuppy123

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Doodlepuppy123/Cyclopentadienyl_anion?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Cyclopentadienyl anion

Evaluate the drafted changes

The lead is concise. Explains the topic and is not overly detailed. The "removes a hydrogen" seems redundant but that may be helpful to a non-chemistry person. Also, I assume the infobox on the right side of the page (with the cas number, picture, ect), was not meant to be removed. If it was, I think it should stay.

Content is also very strong. This article was a good refresher on the compound for me. The content is worded and explained well enough that someone who did not know about the topic could also understand it. The new section on ligand characteristics is excellent, that is an absolutely necessary section for this article. One suggestion for future content would be adding some information about the history of its use as a ligand and the practical qualities. I don't think this is necessary for this assignment, this is just what came to mind when I thought about expanding the article.

Tone of the article raises no concern. You presented the information in a neutral tone.

The sources have good variety and are all easily accessible. The addition of some primary sources is very helpful. I'm not sure about the YouTube video and some of the other website sources. I could be wrong about this, but if you haven't already I would double check that these are acceptable.

- note: I don't doubt the information from the website sources are correct, I just am not sure if these sources are considered reliable by Wikipedia because they are not all from accredited/peer reviewed sources.

I like the organization of the article, you have presented the important information first and it got more complicated as it went on. I also like the final rewritten section about Cp and Copernicium; this is very interesting. I didn't notice any grammar mistakes. The layout of the article looks nice and appropriately separates different information into separate paragraphs.

The new image is good and aids the reader when reading the section on aromaticity. Again, hopefully you can keep the infobox from the original article. If you were to add more images, I think images of some Cp metal complex's would be beneficial to the section describing the possible hapticities of Cp as a ligand.

Overall I think you have made non-trivial improvements to this article. Great overall improvement from the original stub. My suggestions would be to double check the sources and maybe add another image in one of the lower sections to provide some more visual aid.