User:Jojo0577/Agricultural chemistry/Topnotchwriter Peer Review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, I can see where my peer has made a few impactful changes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introduction includes an in-depth explanation of what Agricultural chemistry is but I do feel as though they could further define how it is used.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No it does not
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I believe it is simple and concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it has a direct correlation to not only the topic but flows nicely with what information was already present in the article
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No all their content so far flows together seamlessly
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No I do not believe so.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


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

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

jojo0577


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jojo0577/Agricultural chemistry - Wikipedia


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
First, I would like to start off by saying the additions you have made to the article are very concise, interesting, and valuable. For your organization the article is phenomenal because it is not overly wordy, but it relays the information in a simple clear way. I did not find any grammatical errors or whatsoever so in that respect you are crystal clear and in reference to your media and images I do feel that is an area that could use improvement. I did not see any images added into your article and I believe two images that go along with your information would better grab the attention of your readers and make the overall article look more polished. In your tone you did an awesome job of keeping it objective and unbiased you seem to have stuck strictly to facts which is the goal of this project. You did a great job of keeping your sources up to date and relevant but I would suggest trying to add one more just so you have a wider range of information. The lead section was impeccably done as well because after reading it I felt I had a pretty good grasp on your concept and the way you defined it was "Just right" but I do believe you need to add the major sections in the lead section to make specific information more accessible and it will improve your overall organization. I believe the additions you have made are necessary and impactful which is very great. In my opinion there is nothing "wrong" with the content and information you have added but I do believe there are two things that would greatly improve this article and they are adding clear images and putting the major sections in your lead section.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)