User:Lapurete/Antioxidant/R123J456 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Lapurete's work on the Antioxidant article.


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

Lead:

 * The Lead content has not been updated besides the added title for the Lead. The first sentence clearly defines antioxidants. The lead briefly mentions the major sections of the article such as its role in cells and its dietary and industrial uses. It does not mention the first section of the article, which goes into the history of antioxidants. Other than that, the lead is not overly detailed and easy to read. It does not include facts that are not present in the article

Content

 * The added content is relevant to the topic, and I think it was a great idea to expand more on examples like melatonin, BHT, and such. I also liked how the editor included more examples of food items that contain antioxidants as well. A lot of the added content comes from sources between 2017-2023, except one from 1996, but I think the source is still valid.
 * I do not think there is any missing content because the added information if very detailed. All of them are relevant to the topic so I believe they belong.

Tone and Balance

 * The added content is neutral and there are no claims that seem heavily biased. No viewpoints are unjustly represented because each section has roughly the same sized paragraphs.

Sources and References

 * All new content is backed up by either a reliable primary or secondary source besides the encyclopedia (source 1), which is a tertiary source. The content correctly reflects the findings in the cited sources. All added sources are accessible and majority of them are current besides the one from 1997. The sources come from a diverse spectrum of authors. All the links work as well.

Organization

 * The content is relatively easy to read. There is a spelling error of the word "indoor" (as mentioned below in "comments on added information in the following sections."
 * The article is well organized into sections and the order of subtopics seems reasonable.

Images and Media

 * The editor added a figure of melatonin and it is well-captioned. It is laid out in a visually appealing way and adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations as the owner stated it is for the public domain.

Overall impressions

 * The article seems more complete because of the expansion of information on industrial uses, health research, and food levels.
 * Adding more real-life examples like food items and more information on the interactions was helpful readers like me who are not entirely familiar with the subject. The article seems more trustworthy with this added information, especially because it is backed up by up-to-date sources.
 * The content can be improved by adding more Wikipedia links to words or topics that have their own Wikipedia pages.
 * Please see the following comments below:

Health Research section:

 * I would link certain words that a reader may not be too familiar with like mitochondria to their Wikipedia article if they exist.
 * In the line, "The study mentioned that higher efficiency of the electron transport chain reduces free radicals' generation, making melatonin a highly effective radical scavenger," "the study mentioned that" can be redacted or replaced with the name(s) of the researchers.
 * Great job on the addition of the melatonin diagram! I recommend moving the figure near the paragraph about melatonin instead of having it beside the 'interactions' subheading.
 * "Work by," in "Anticancer drugs work by producing free radicals that weaken cancer cells," can be redacted by changing 'producing' to 'produce'.
 * In the line, "For example, melatonin scavenges hemoglobin-derived oxoferryl radicals and HOCl(hypochlorous acid) to stop 5-thio-2-nitrobenzoic acid from being oxidized," the word scavenges can be replaced by a simpler word(s) like search and collects.
 * There are a lot of big science terms like polyphenols and terpenoid groups, exogeneous, phenolic acid, flavonoids, stilbenes, lignan, and more throughout the added paragraphs without definitions. As mentioned earlier, it would be useful for unknowledgeable readers if the editor attached links to each of the word's Wikipedia pages.
 * In the last paragraph under the 'Interactions' subheading, there is an abbreviation named "ROS" that was not introduced beforehand. I am assuming it stands for reactive oxygen species. The author should add ROS in brackets when the article first mentions reactive oxygen species.

Industrial Uses Section:

 * There is a typo with the word "indoor" in the line "SPAs are common in  inddor  dusts..."
 * The author can easily replace terms like "synthesized" to "made" for people to understand more easily.
 * The rest of the paragraph is pretty easy to understand, despite the great amount of information, so good job!