User:Cayeung/Cholestene/Greta Margaux Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cayeung and Thejigglyjello


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cayeung/Cholestene?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cholestene

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:

The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added. It does not mention Cholestene's use as a dietary supplement. The lead of the whole article does not have much detail and does not describe the sections that they are planning to add, such as "Applications," "Derivatives," and "Preparation".

Content:

The content added is relevant to the topic and I think that these sections will be very helpful additions to the wiki page since it describes the uses and features of cholestene in greater detail. Most of the information added is up-to-date, since the websites that they cited are regularly updated (pubchem) and the articles they chose have been published in the last two decades.

The topic that they chose is certainly underrepresented because the initial article does not have much information apart from the intro paragraph. They are adding valuable information that people may find useful; however, I think this group should add more details about how cholestene interacts with the other medications to induce negative side effects, so users can further understand the properties of cholestene.

Tone and Balance:

The content that they added are neutral and unbiased. It does not seem that certain viewpoints are under/overrepresented and they do not try to persuade the viewers to one side than the other.

Sources and References:

The content is backed up by reliable sources, with some of their references being primary sources, and some are secondary. The information they derived from the secondary sources are mostly about the structures of their molecules, which they redrew on their wiki page. Most of their descriptions about the molecules come from primary literature articles that they cited. Their links are clickable.

Their sources are relatively current, but they only have one primary source with three authors, so it cannot be be said that they have a diverse range of authors. I currently do not see any inclusion of marginalized people. This group generally have reliable sources, but I would recommend looking for more primary sources to add/back-up the information that they have.

OrganizationThe content added is clear and concise and is easy to follow. The text that were added do not have any errors, but I would re-structure the sentence, "...contain a hidden drug ingredient, lovastatin, a drug ingredient that may cause..." since it repeats "drug ingredient" twice.

Images and Media

The images make sense in the context of the article, but the last three images are blurry. The images are well-captioned, but maybe more description can be added to the synthesis reaction so users can further understand the mechanism of the preparation. The images are well-placed and they do adhere to wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Overall Impressions:

The content added did significantly improve the quality of the article since there was not a lot of information initially. The information added are useful and concise and further describes the properties of cholestene that the general public may not be aware of. It's interesting!