User:Elbert Ainsteinium/Michael reaction/Greta Margaux Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kat3r1nayr, Sach548, Elbert Ainsteninium


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elbert%20Ainsteinium/Michael_reaction?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Michael reaction

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 edited lead for the "Definition" section is concise and includes many more links to other wiki pages that may be useful to the readers.

The lead for the overall article has not been changed. Other than its brief description of the mechanism scheme, it does not have descriptions of the other major sections of the article.

Content:

The content added is relevant and up-to-date. The Michael reaction does not have that much information on it relative to other reactions available on Wikipedia, so I would say that the group is addressing one portion of Wikipedia's equity gaps. This group is adding more sections that I think are necessary for the Michael Reaction page, such as its applications, which will be useful once their section is fully edited and published.

Tone and Balance:

The content that they added are neutral and are not biased towards a particular position. The content does not try to persuade the viewers into one side, rather, its goal is to teach the viewers the different concepts of the Michael reaction.

Sources and References:

Yes, new content is backed up by reliable sources. This group mainly used primary literature and had even cited a textbook to refer their information in, all of which are properly cited. The sources are relatively current, but one of the articles is from 1975. There is a diverse range of authors and the links are clickable.

Organization:

The content added is well-written and flows easily, since the sections they plan to add and the sections they edited all reflect the important points of the Michael reaction.

Overall impressions:

I think the content soon to be added and the edited sections definitely make the article more complete and comprehensive. It will allow the readers to understand the Michael reaction more and understand its uses in the real world. The only thing really missing are images and media, however, the group acknowledges this and marks down areas where they would like to add media. Overall, I really like the additions being made and I am excited to see the work being published soon!