User:1597 CE/Activated complex/Dorsanil Peer Review

General info
User:1597
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:1597 CE/Activated complex
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Activated complex

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.)

The lead has been updated to reflect the newly added content. The introductory sentence on the lead does not clearly describe the article's topic. The lead includes a brief description of almost all the major sections of the article (missing 'Symmetry' in the lead). This is no irrelevant information in the lead; it is concise and efficient.

The content added is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. There is no missing or unnecessary content. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

The content added is neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. No viewpoint is overrepresented or underrepresented. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

The new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. The content accurately reflects what the cited sources say. The sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are almost current; however, for this topic, the sources do not necessarily need to be very up-to-date. There are sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors; however, a few of the sources are from the same organization. They do not include historically marginalized individuals. The sources used are credible, and many are from peer-reviewed articles. The checked links work.

The added content is well-written; it is concise, clear, and easy to read. The content does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. It is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

No images and media were added.

The added content overall improves the quality of the article and makes it more complete. The strength of the content added is that it provides a clear explanation of the theory of activated complexes, allowing readers to grasp the concept. It also provides a history section, allowing readers to make a connection between how the concept was realized and studied. The content can be improved explaining the applications of the theory and how/where activated complexes are/ca or be used.