User:4Yz12/Soil Chemistry/R33nayl3aves Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

4Yz12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:4Yz12/Soil Chemistry


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Soil chemistry

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:

User didn't add to the lead.

Content:

The user is expanding upon the main concepts of soil chemistry which is definitely needed. It is assumed that this content would go under the Concepts section of the article. The information added appears relevant and up to date but needs citation in the content. Some of the content seems incomplete as far as additions go. User may want to determine if what has been written is close paraphrasing. It is uncertain if there is close paraphrasing given the citations have not been directly added to the content it belongs to.

Tone and Balance:

Content added is neutral in tone.

Sources and References:

Sources seem relevant and from a good source. The references do need to be properly cited however to the content sourced from it.

Organization:

Both the article and the draft could use better organization, such as the usage of headings and subheadings. The content should be written in paragraph form rather than lists. User is recommended to check whether certain formatting (ex: bold) is necessary and fits within Wikipedia's guidelines. Also the content from the article should be added to the draft the organization can be done smoothly.

General Impressions:

The content added is relevant and seems to be going in the right direction. Proper usage of citation methods and organizing the information can advance the work already done.