User:Ezpzii/Reductive amination/User8736 Peer Review

General info
Ezpzii & Rmchar
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Ezpzii/Reductive amination
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Reductive amination

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
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No new lead has been presented. New section on green chemistry should be mentioned.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? From the introduction in the existing article, yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The existing lead does not mention biochemistry section (from oiriginal article) and needs to add new section on green chemistry.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Lead from original article mentions application in pharmaceuticals but this topic is not elaborated on in the rest of the page.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

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? asymmetric reductive amination is suggested as a solution for synthesizing chiral molecules. This suggestion could be explained more or a figure of the reaction would be helpful.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? na

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes, none are before the 2000s
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? n/a
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) They all look reliable as they're published in scientific journals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * 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


 * not added yet

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes definitely adds more details and examples to existing sections and suggest a new interesting concept on green chemistry.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Examples for variation and related reactions are detailed yet easy to understand
 * How can the content added be improved? add media, specifically figures for the reaction of asymmetric reductive amination and the example of enelRED amination