User:Cheerios1028/Screaming jelly babies/Chmstr Peer Review

General info
Cheerios1028/CrayfishClarinetist
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Cheerios1028/Screaming jelly babies
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Screaming jelly babies

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:

Lead is very similar to previous one, but shorter! I think it was a good choice to break the previous lead into two sections because the original article had more information in the lead than perhaps necessary. I do wonder why they took out the references in the lead – it might be worth it to add citations if they can find anything!

Content:

I like how they added a mechanism section! It helps visualize the reaction when before it was presented in paragraph form.

Tone and balance:

Tone is good! Neutral additions that do not seem biased towards either side

Sources and references:

More sources would likely be helpful, as well as more papers about this experiment being conducted. Also, it looks like they removed the sources from the lead – it might be a good idea to add some into the lead as well, especially articles from peer-reviewed journals!. All internal links are working as well.

Images and media:

No new images are added, but original images on the website look good so I'm not sure it's necessary to add more!

Overall impressions:

I really enjoy how they broke down the mechanism! I think more could possibly be added to the article body to explain why this reaction is conducted, as well as more sources to discuss why this reaction occurs.