User:Chasemcbee/Marta Catellani/Brittenallen 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)
 * Chasemcbee
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Chasemcbee/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I think the Lead could be updated to reflect this information!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not the section proposed to be added!
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No, it flows nicely with the information provided.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No!

Content evaluation
The content is relevant and you did a nice job on being informative in a simple manner while also providing some of the complexities of what is going on!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No!
 * 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?
 * No, it came off as completely informative!

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is strictly informative and doesn't come off as biased or potentially misleading.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes! The source work is actually quite nice here.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes!
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes!
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All work!

Sources and references evaluation
The sourcing is nice and you have a good variation of different works and articles.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part, you might read it aloud as some of the sections are a bit wonky to read and understand outside of spoken speech.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * At the end of the second line, There's a sentence that starts "Catellani and her team...", you might check this part out because I think some of the technical grammar and syntax is off.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There's not any images!
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There's not any images!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There's not any images!
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There's not any images!

Images and media evaluation
I personally think articles can almost always benefit from a good image or two!

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?
 * Yes!
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There is a nice range of variety!
 * 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?
 * Yes!
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes!

New Article Evaluation
Really, really well done on the addition of this information!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes! I think if the individual has a reaction named after them, it would be nice to have that included into the article. As such, nice job on the research to bring this up!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is informative and as a Chemistry Major, I actually enjoyed reading the breakdown of this synthesis reaction!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * You might re-read your writing around as we can always improved the way the writing presents information. It can sometimes be hard to find and add pictures, but I personally feel like Wikipedia articles should always have some sort of picture whether it be the person, or a picture of their work!

Overall evaluation
The article itself is nice. I would definitely do a small bit more editing, attempt to find some sort of good imagery, change the original starting paragraph to reflect your addition and add this in!