User:BigChem/Molecular configuration/Dr.MeowMeow Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BIG CHEM


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:BigChem/Molecular configuration


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Molecular configuration

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.)

CONTENT:

'''The content that has been added is all relevant to the topic. I think you did a fantastic job of providing examples of molecular configuration and elaborating on those examples just enough to give context but not enough to warrant its own wikipedia page. All of the content added is up to date and accurate. Im not sure if the subsection "Configurations of pharmacological compounds" is necessary. It is relevant to the topic but I do think this is where it starts to veer a bit too far from the topic. This is not an effect that molecular configuration has on pharmacological compounds. I think in order to stay completely on the topic you have to focus on the what molecular configuration is.'''

TONE and BALANCE:

'''I think all the content added is neutral. There are no claims that are biased at all. There ae no under or overrepresented viewpoints. The content does not persuade the reader to think in any certain position.'''

Sources and References:

Almost all the content is backed up by reliable secondary source of information. I think the fourth source isnt the most reliable one. It seems to be from a university but there is not much information about the credentials. Otherwise all the sources are relevant and appropriate. They are not extremely new but I do not see that as an issue at all since chirality has not changed definitions in the last 20 years.

Organization:

I think the content added is extremely well written. Very concise and short but just enough information gets across to make it clear to the ready. There are a few spelling errors but those are trivial and easy to fix with a proof read. The sections are well organized ad very relevant. Great job!

Images and Media:

The images added are very relevant and are very well placed.

The caption of the enantiomers is a little too specific. Can just make it shorter and more concise. Other than that the images are well captioned. The layout of the images is great. COnnects well with the definitions.

Overall Impression:

'''I do think that you have greatly improved the quality of the article. I think you are just on the border of being on topic. Everything you talked about does have to deal with molecular configuration and are excellent examples of it. However I think there might be a fine line between talking about your topic and just talking about something that relates to your topic ( pharmacological compounds). I think your strengths outweigh your weaknesses by alot in the imporvement of the article. You have written everything very well and concise. I think with some minor edits this will be an amazing article!'''