User:Akalsip/BOP reagent/Bthsctt22 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Akalsip
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Akalsip/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No edits to article lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, two of the sources were from within the last 10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article needs a heading for the added paragraph.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, just information about BOP.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It is talking about the advantages of using BOP but is not from a biased standpoint.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? One source was a little older (1998) but the other two were recent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The citation links worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None, that I caught. The first sentence should probably start with "BOP can be used..." though.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Not long enough to apply but the information added should be given a title of some kind.

Images and media evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is better than it was. More thorough than before.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Gives relevant information regarding BOP and the advantages of its use.
 * How can the content added be improved? One of the sources was just a link to sigmaaldrich about the molecule BOP and I was not sure why it was used and the third source was very dated. It made me wonder if there were any more recent sources that could have been referenced. The information added was helpful but the article still seems a little incomplete.

Overall evaluation:
'''Short but helpful information added overall. I am not well-versed on BOP but perhaps the editor could ask themselves what information would someone searching for BOP on Wikipedia want to know and perhaps that would help them in any additional information to include.'''