User:VeryCatIonic/Differential refractometer/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?

VeryCatIonic and WwikiS

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

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

I don't think the lead was changed from before.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- I think the content added is relevant to the topic since priniciples of operations, general operations and their applications help improve understanding of Differential refractometers.
Is the content added up-to-date?
- The content does look up-to-date with some recent references included, and with some references where new research was first discovered.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I don't think there is missing content or content that does not belong.

Tone and Balence

Is the content added neutral?
- The content added is neutral are there no biases present.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Claims seem to be neutral which are well-alogned with Wikipedia guidelines.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, the content appears to be neutral, making the reader just understand the information present, and not also its biases.

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- I don't think all content is backed my reliable secondary sources of information.
  - I think under principles of operation, under "refractive index increment," the following is not backed up by references, "where the change in concentration is plotted against the change in refractive index. The refractive index is affected by solvent, temperature, wavelength of light, environmental conditions and solute (polymer type)."
  - Additionally, the information under "Flow cells," "Optical wedge or prism," "Detector," "Signal processor," and "Temperature control system," under Principles of Operation, are also not backed up by reference(s).
  - Also, the following information under "Set-up" under General Operation, "Power on and configure the differential refractometer according to the manufacturer's manuals and desired applications."
  - With this, the information under "Interactions with Solvent," under Data Utility, "Since differential refractometer is an external tool, the solvent viscosity does not pose a barrier to measurement, and thus interactions of solute with solvents with high viscosity can potentially be measured" is not referenced. Including the information under the same sameheading, called "Temperature."
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
- Not all references accurately refelct what the cited sources say since reference #7 leads to a page that is not available.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Not, not all sources are thorough since reference #7 is not available to be seen.
Are the sources current?
- Some sources are from 4-5 years ago, while some orginiate from the 1950s and 1990s. I'm guessing this is fine as its when the ressearch was first studied.
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 the sources that are refernced are fine as no random websites are listed.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Reference #7 does not work.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- I think overall the content is well written, however I found one sentence you could imrove on. Under general shape under data utility, I think you can word the sentence better for clarity. For instance, you can write, "The shape of a solute will influence its induced dipole, affecting solvent polarizability, and thus the refractive index." Also, I feel like the word "influxes" makes it hard to know what you are saying, where the reader has to pause and reflect on this, interrupting flow. Consider replacing this word with "influences."
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I could not find 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?
- I think the content is well-organized with knowing we operate differential refractometres, how they are used, how data is used and then they talk about applications which I think flows really well.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes, the article does include images showing an equation, which furthers understanding for refractive indexes and refractive index increments.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- No, I don't think they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations since the first image for refractive indexes does not have a lisence that supports restribution. For the second image, I think it should be okay since its a scientific theorem, but please check just in case.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes, the images are placed in visually appealing ways.

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- I think the article definitely improved the article and made the information look more comprehensive and thus more complete.
What are the strengths of the content added?
- I think the strenghts is that they expanded on the Principles of Operation, and extended that to how to use it, how data is used, and they also further expanded on Applications.
How can the content added be improved?
- I think the link to Reference #7 should be fixed and make the article more readable, especially for beginner chemists keen on learning about Differential Refractometers by making words more simple.