User:Ishachahal/Cloud condensation nuclei/Elbert Ainsteinium Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ishachahal, Kyall P and KZhengUBC


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ishachahal/Cloud_condensation_nuclei?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cloud condensation nuclei

Lead
Lead concisely and clearly introduces the article's topic. Currently the lead does not have a brief discussion of the major sections the article discusses. There is no information present in the lead that the rest of the article does not link to or discuss. For the most part lead is concise, may be too concise. However, this could easily be remedied by having a small discuss about the major sections the article is going to talk about. Lead similar to original article.

Content
Content is up to date and does not include anything that does not belong in the article or relate to the topic. Content is similar to original article.

Tone and Balance
The tone is balanced and scientific. No view points are under or over stated and there is no attempt at persuading the readers. No claims are biased towards one reference or idea being supported by appropriate sources. Tone is similar to original article.

Sources and References
Sources and references have been overhauled by authors introduce many current literature sources such as scientific articles by both government bodies and individual researchers, books by authors involved in the primary literature creation and from diverse authors. Original article had many citations missing which have now been provided by the student authors. All source links work as intended and are thorough. The content accurately reflects source material without direct or close paraphrasing.

Organization
So far organization has been greatly improved from the original article. The authors have neatly divided each section into well defined paragraphs. This helps make the discussion of the article easier to follow for readers. No typos or major grammatically errors noticed. Some paragraphs may gain from conciseness and improving structure of sentence. Third paragraph of the lead section can be made more clear by breaking first sentence into 2 smaller ones.

Images and Media
No new media and images are introduced at the time of review.

Overall Impressions
At the moment the draft article is rather similar to the original article, barring the citations and references which were overhauled (see references section above). The review assumes more changes will be added/made soon and looks forward to seeing the article draft grow. Seeing as the authors have so far found excellent sources any further additions are likely going to be properly referenced. The decision to break the sections into manageable paragraphs focusing on one theme/idea is a great change from the original article. Previously readers had to do this sectioning mentally.