User:Benzene039/Aldonic acid/ChefJeff41 Peer Review

General info
Benzene039
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Benzene039/Aldonic acid
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Aldonic acid

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.)

Hi Benzene039, below is my peer review for you.

Lead:

Thank you so much for this comment.
 * Rather than having a new lead, I notice that you transfer the information from the orginal "Use and Occurence" section to the summary as your lead. This is a great idea as the information can be used as a summary already. Adding an image of glucose with caption also helps the readers to understand the difference between the chemical structure of gluconic acid and glucose.

Content:

This is good to know, thank you. ''In response to your suggestion regarding an example of an enzyme, I have considered it as an option. However, I could not find a good image in the public domain that would properly allow me to show one example of this enzyme.''
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, within the eight articles added in the Aldonic Acid article, only two of them are not after the 2000's. However, those two display the early discovery of glucose and aldonic glucose, which are important references.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - To extend from the "Oxidation by Bromine and Water" orginally mentioned in the article, you add an image of the reaction mechanism. This is great as it helps the readers understand how aldonic acids are commonly prepared from instead of only mentioning it by words. And you also do the same thing for "Oxidation by Benedict's and Fehling's Reagents".
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Everything is great, but if possible I believe having an example for the enzyme under the natural synthesis can be helpful. I am just looking for a bone in an egg here to be honest. Awesome job!

Tone and Balance:

In response to your suggestion, I have decided to leave the first paragraph under "Properties" as it is, because I still believe it pertains to the subheading in question (it would also make the properties section too short).
 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, all the added and modified information are delivered in neutral tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Nothing in particular. However, after reading your article again, I feel like you can put the first paragraph under the "Properties" section into the "Applications" section since you are talking about industrial applications of aldonic acids.

Sources and References:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes, all the new contents are from peer-reviewed journals.
 * Your sources and references are gathered from a broad range of years.

Thank you for your affirmations.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes, I do not have any constructive comment for this.

Organization:

''In response to your suggestion, I have gotten rid of the "optically active," as it seemed to not be too relevant in this article anyways. I have decided to keep the rest of the sentence as it is.''
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, the content added are easy to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - I only find one little error after reading your sandbox. Under the "Properties" section, you wrote " Aldonic acids are optically active and their ring formation allows for an added layer of rigidity when integrated with other materials." Having a comma before the and might help with the flow of the sentence here.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, the only knit-picking one I can find is the suggestion I made under the tone and balance of this peer review.

Overall Impression:

''Thank you for this comment. In response to your suggestion, I have decided to keep the common sugars out of the picture, as I believe they can access this information easily under the "sugar acids" hyperlink in my lead.''
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - Yes, the added contents improved the overall quality of the article. Addtionally, removing the information of "Kiliani-Fischer synthesis of sugars" from the orginal article avoids the confusion bewteen aldose synthesized from Benedict's or Fehling's reagents and the lactone in the Kiliani-Fischer synthesis.
 * What are the strengths and weaknesses of the content added? -
 * Strengths: All the added images and chemical structures are really key for any non-chemistry-major or first year students to understand aldonic acids. Changing the "Preparation and reactions" to "Synthesis" and combining the "Use and Occurence" with "Lead (Summary) also helps with the flow for explaining your topic really well.
 * Weaknesses: If applicable, having some more information under the properties section with comparison of other common sugars might help the readers understand the similarities or differences between the aldonic acids and the other sugars.

Images and Medias:


 * As mentioned above in the content and lead sections, all the images you have annotated and added are relevant and significant in helping the readers to better understand the mechanisms and synthesis of aldonic acids. Nothing I can suggest for the images and medias.

Additional Questions:


 * Cannot think of any at the moment.

' Hello, I have decided to add my responses in italics between each suggestion. I chose to respond to mostly comments that pertain to critical feedback as opposed to saying "thank you" to every affirmative feedback I received. '