User:Jnewman12/Continuous stirred-tank reactor/Evanpmlester Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Jnewman12)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Continuous stirred-tank reactor

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Some (specifically about valid residence times)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Mostly concise, some details--see above--feel like they could be moved into a different section

Lead evaluation
Good for the most part, I feel discussing the structure of the overall article could help it more

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?
 * No

Content evaluation
While the content here is good it feels slightly unorganized and like there should maybe be more sections, given your sandbox there is a lot of info you want to add so I am sure you are aware of these short comings

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

Tone and balance evaluation
Seems fine

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Jacobs contributions, the article as a whole though needs more work
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not noticeably
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * There could be more sections especially as there this article could really be far longer, Jacob mentions some of these in the sandbox

Organization evaluation
Given sandbox suggestions and amount of work done so far I think its good. One note, that first section has some messy equations.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Could be more detailed
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * These look good

Images and media evaluation
Cool that people made there own CSTR graphics for this

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Added content is getting there, not a yet, but I like the direction
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I like the environmental engineering angle as this is a super important CSTR application
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The added content is great so far, I think the overall article could be improved more but I like the changes made

Overall evaluation
Great progress so far! The places for improvement that I would emphasize are the organization of the article, the look of the first section, and the lead. I like your ideas in the sandbox and am excited to see where this goes.