User:Ciqiy/Gunshot residue/Ntmy777 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ciqiy


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ciqiy/Gunshot residue
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gunshot residue

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

There is no major editing done on the lead. The introductory sentence clearly covers the topic. I think the second paragraph somewhat diverges from the intention of the lead, it could be relocated to results (if the content is desirable). In addition, you could give a quick overview of the major subsections.

Contents

New content added is relevant to the topic, concisely written, and broken down into organized subtopics. I see that the results section is now more refined in a logical manner after editing.

Tone and Balance

The content is neutral and unbiased. The viewpoints do not underrepresent or overrepresent the population, and the tone is informative rather than persuasive.

Sources and References

Newly added sources back up statements in the article. Most of them are up-to-date except for #5 which is from 1974. If there are no new advances in evaluating gunshot residues using the sodium rhodizonate test, then it's a valid source. All sources are accessible, and the links are working. The organic gunshot residue section relies on a single reference, it would be better if the content is supported by more sources.

Organization

When finalizing the article, be mindful that you could hyperlink words that have existing wiki articles, this will guide the audience for further information.

Recall what we learned in Brogan, I think you could hyphenate gun-to-target distance since gun-to-target is a compound modifier of distance. Also, it is an extremely sensitive...

In my opinion, the subtopic on Matching gunshot residue to a specific source could be moved above results for two reasons. 1) help the audience establish knowledge of characterization techniques before they are mentioned in the results section. 2) both results and organic gunshot residue sections mention secondary transfer.

Images and Media

There are no newly added images. The images from the original article seem relevant to the topic and the captions are clear. I recommend adding more visual aids, perhaps an image on chemical tests.

Overall impressions

you made very effective edits to the article by adding pieces of information regarding organic gunshot residue and chemical tests. There is a lot of content, but you made it easy to understand! The lead could be further improved by removing some information and summarizing the most important points about the topic.