User:GreyAvocado/Stereochemistry/Royhe62 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?

GreyAvocado, Nicl0728

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

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your pee

There is no content about the lead included in this draft.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Half and half. Adding a section on epimers is relevant, as it is related to sterochemistry.

I'm not sure what the goal of the Catalogue of types section is. For now, it just seems to be a repeat of the previous section. Although adding images is likely a good idea.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes. The added information on epimers is still relevant.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Wikipedia already has an epimer article. May be good to link to it

Tone and Balance

No issues with tone. Content added is neutral, and does attempt to persuade to any viewpoint.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Sources are added, but no in-text citations is done.

None of the new souces that were accessible mentioned epimers.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

No new content was added about the nature of stereochemistry, which is what the sources discuss.

The main new addition, epimers, were not mentioned.

Are the sources current?

Somewhat. The sources are from the mid 90's to mid 2010's. This should be fine in this case, as the nature of stereochemistry hasn't been changed radically in the last 30 years.

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

Organization

No spelling mistakes, and not many changes to flow.

Again, not sure what the goal of the new section "Catalogue of Types" is.

Images and Media

One new image was added: an example of enatiomers.

This was a good addition, as seeing an actual example does enhance understandig of the topic.

The caption is adequet, describing the image as a "Basic Enatiomer Pair Example" , which is what the image is.

The image is the student's own work, and is simple enough to draw with ChemDraw software, which would be consistent with Wikipedia's copyright.