User:Bthsctt22/Williamson ether synthesis/Canders547 Peer Review

Reply to Peer Review
The reason for discussing undergraduate labs had nothing to do with personal experience since we did not perform this synthesis in the lab I took at UNCA. It was relevant because of the article I cited which was discussing how microwave enhanced technology is being used to speed up reactions, this one in particular, and how they tested it in undergraduate laboratories. I was also told by Dr. Heard that we should be making substantial changes to the articles we were editing (since the point is to make the articles more thorough and provide relevant information on the topic), so I respectfully disagree that I should make two paragraphs fit into one sentence.

I do agree that I could perhaps find a way to incorporate my addition under Scope instead of adding a new section title. And if it is truly unclear that the reaction is not done only in undergraduate labs (although I believe in the original article as well as in my second paragraph industrial synthesis is discussed) then I will clarify that. The section on mechanism would definitely seem redundant if you did not compare my additions side by side with the actual article as I edited their paragraph about it and added citations (the original had none and I added the one currently on Wikipedia a few weeks ago when we were supposed to add a citation to a page). I also looked at the talk page and it was suggested that the mechanism section should have more detail so this edit was not just my idea but what was being suggested by the Wiki community. Bthsctt22 (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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? Bthsctt22
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bthsctt22/Williamson ether synthesis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? somethings added yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? was already in the article
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes was already there
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Mostly
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? mostly
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? discussing undergraduate labs using this might be a little to specific, would broaden it a bit
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? just that it sounds like it is mostly used as a reaction for teaching in undergrad labs

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?
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? : no? links to papers arent there?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Needs editing, but mostly
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? only 1 section added so far but yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added? what has been added will help to understand why and how the reaction is used.
 * How can the content added be improved? edit added section on innovations.

Overall evaluation
Contributions are headed in the right direction. What was added to mechanism might be a little redundant for what is already in the article. I'm guessing it'll be added alongside what is already on the wiki page. I would also be careful about being too specific about how it is used, in undergrad labs for example, as it may be used in many other labs for other reasons and that could create a bias. Scope section in the article already talks about how the reaction is used today and why, so added the new innovations section might be redundant. I would summarize what you have into one sentence and incorporate it into what is already said.