User:Leafsfan3/Organic synthesis/Primary resource Peer Review

General info
Leafsfan3 (provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Leafsfan3/Organic synthesis:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Organic synthesis

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 doesn't appear to have been edited. The original Lead is relatively short, and could use some citations, so this should be considered in later stages of editing.

Body:

Content:

The content is good, though perhaps in too much detail in some areas. Links to other wikipedia articles could aid in condensing the whole article into a more manageable size. Furthermore, the addition of citations has considerably improved this article, though I would encourage more citations where possible. Additional content is relevant and written in good detail.

Content is neutral and very useful. No bias is presented, and overall the article is well-written and clear.

The works cited are varied and reputable - they have used sources that will provide very useful further information for interested readers, as well as very reputable journal articles. I would consider increasing the number of citations even more if possible, as this was mentioned as a point for review on the original wiki article. Perhaps more citations can also be added to the information already present in the Wiki article.

I would suggest providing another example of how the specific techniques discussed have been used in peer-reviewed literature. This will provide context, as well as more reputable sources for your reader to refer to if they choose. I like the example of Ibuprofen at the end, but short examples within the text as well would also flesh out the immediate detail of the article.

No images have been included - schemes of the techniques discussed and theory behind them would greatly improve the article's readability and ease of understanding. Perhaps consider a liquid-liquid extraction image, and crystallization image, as well as a short scheme explaining the reaction of Ibuprofen.

I note your plans for removing the stereoselective synthesis paragraph - I would hesitate to completely delete this paragraph, as it does provide interesting context and another good example of organic synthesis. Instead, perhaps consider condensing and making it more accessible for a more general audience.

Overall impressions:

This is a good first draft with some excellent additions being made! The authors are clear on their next steps in the sandbox, and have some very good ideas on where to take the article. Best suggestions on improvement would be adding more citations, adding figures of processes and condensing currently written article body so less detail is added.