User:Jessicamarutani/2-Fluoroadenine/Rainy124 Peer Review

General info
Jessicamarutani
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jessicamarutani/2-Fluoroadenine?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):2-Fluoroadenine

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 lead has been updated to reflect the new content and includes an introductory sentence to define the topic. The article doesn't include a brief description of the article's major sections as the article itself is already short. Thus, the lead does include information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise as the article is short and only requires a definition of the topic.

Content

 * The content added is relevant to the topic because she discusses how this compound can be used as an intermediate for pharmaceutical drugs as well as for cancer treatments.
 * The content appears to be up to date. The content that appears to be incorrect is the citations as the numbering does not start at 1. There should be only 9 citations, not 11.

Tone and Balance

 * The content added is neutral, none of the claims appear to be biased towards one particular position. They appear to support the lead with further discussions on the utilization of this compound.
 * The content added is not an attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position.

Sources and References

 * All new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The content does accurately reflect what the cited sources say and the sources appear to be thorough as they discuss the use of this compound well.
 * Two of the sources are relatively current (2019), but one of the sources is from 1969 which is significantly outdated compared to the previous articles.

Organization

 * The content added is well-written and moderately organized. It is broken down into sections that reflect the main points. However, I believe the added content can be further separated due to the various topics that the author discusses. Perhaps a subheading to discuss the medicinal applications to this compound. Otherwise, it may seem to be an information dump with the differing topics of the lead compared to the rest of the article.

Images and Media

 * My peer did not add any images. There is only one image of the compound that the peer did not add.

Overall impressions

 * The content added improved the overall quality of the article. the article appears more complete due to the addition of possible applications of the drug.
 * Strengths: The content discusses detailed applications as well as multiple applications of this compound.
 * Improvements: Perhaps going further into detail and separating the different applications into sections can provide more understanding to the readers. Simply stating facts hinders one's ability to fully comprehend the material. However, the point of the article to define this compound and give a general understanding was successfully completed.