User:CorrelationSpec/Work-up/Hj18z Peer Review

Whose work are you reviewing?
CorrelationSpec

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CorrelationSpec/Work-up?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Work-up

Evaluate the drafted changes
The author has significantly enhanced the quality of the Wikipedia page. The lead is concise and clearly explains the article's topic. The addition of the word "colloquially" emphasizes the informal nature of the term work-up, which I believe is a significant point to make before moving onto the body of the article.

Before continuing to the examples section, the author provided a brief paragraph explaining that a single reaction may require several work-up steps and that not all work-up steps may be explicitly mentioned. This transition was effective in preparing the reader for the following section, and providing them with additional information on how to look for and interpret the work-up steps.

The author effectively highlighted the work-up steps in the article, which the original Wikipedia page did not do well. The use of red ink to highlight the work-up steps in the images was highly effective, as it drew the reader's attention to the significant parts of the reaction scheme. However, the emphasis on work-up could be further improved in the image of “Isolation of Benzoic Acid” by only including the workup step not the whole reaction scheme, since it is not relevant to the topic and the reaction was previously explained in the text.

The article's tone is neutral, and the content succinctly summarizes the cited sources. The sources are all current, and either scholarly and peer-reviewed journal articles or textbooks. The added information is concise, clear, and easy for the reader to follow along with. The article is well-organized, with clear subheadings and bullet points that help break down the information. The author spaced out the images well and laid them out in an appealing way, with sufficient captions.

The article is concise and clear, making it easier for readers to understand the concepts involved in work-up procedures. The article avoids using too much jargon, which makes it accessible for readers who aren't experts in the field. Furthermore, the article provides additional examples of work-up procedures, including examples that use different methods of work-up. This addition helps illustrate the key concepts and it shows how researchers apply these procedures in practice.

In order to increase the article's credibility, the author should incorporate more sources that support the points made. Furthermore, in the bullet points that follow the reaction scheme images, the author could improve the article by narrowing down the steps and removing information that is not directly relevant to the work-up procedures. Additionally, the article could benefit from including a wider range of examples across various fields of chemistry, rather than being limited to organic chemistry. This would expand the articles range and provide more context for readers.

Overall, the article is well-written and informative, and the author has made non-trivial improvements to the original Wikipedia page.