User:Lq1i/Standard addition/TaroToro Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Lq1i
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Lq1i/Standard addition
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Standard addition
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Standard addition

Evaluate the drafted changes
Your lead clearly introduces the topic, standard addition. It's also easier to read this section now. I think removing the word sample matrix was a good choice because the audience wouldn't know what that means. Maybe you could briefly explain what exactly makes the sample complex like what is the matrix effect, and if the reader wants to read more they can click on the link to the article on matrix effects. Also, to include a sentence on the overview of the main sections of your article. Overall, your lead is concise.

Looking at your edited article overall, I liked how you added subheadings when necessary. It makes it a lot easier for the audience to read since its not a big section of text.

The first paragraph under Various Standard Additions summerized what standard addition is. I liked how you explained what spiking is in the context of standard addition. You also introduced the next few paragraphs by stating there are many approaches to standard addition.

The paragraphs under Single Standard Addition Used in Classic Polarography was straightforward and not confusing. I liked how you first explained the method then got into more details about its history. A suggestion I have is to remove the word classic in the subheading since your mention classic polarography and modern polarography. Then include a sentence about how there's the classic and modern method. You used dashes and colons, so sticking to one might seem more consistent. I also don't know if two dashes (--) are appropriate. In Wikipedia's Manual of Style you can find information about using em dashes or spaced en dashes instead. Choose one for the entire article for consistency.

The subheading Successive Addition of Standards in Constant Sample and Total Volume - the Most Common Approach could be shortened. I think you can remove " the Most Common Approach" and add it as the first sentence under it. It'll match the previous subheading better too. The first paragraph is a nice transition from standard addition in polarography. You mentioned a one-point addition, and the audience might not know what it is, so you could either reword that or explain what it means. I think the third and fourth paragraph can be combined since it's related to each other.

I think the heading Example of Standard Addition explains what you're going to write about better than the original heading. Splitting it into paragraphs was also a good choice since it's easier to read now. You're missing a space between the words spectrometer and with in the first paragraph. You mentioned aqueous solutions and linked it to the Wikipedia article, but you should include the hyperlink for the entire two words with the last "s" as well. You included a new image in this section showing a spreadsheet used during standard addition. It's your own image so it doesn't violate Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I think the image is well-captioned and helps your understanding of the topic. However, maybe you could separate it into two images, one with the spreadsheet and another showing the graph. I think the graph is important and should be more clear for the reader. I think merging the original section Procedure into this section was a good choice, so it's less repetitive.

Again, I think the heading Limitation and Uncertainty of Standard Addition is an improvement from the original. I liked how you explained the purpose of the equations first. I think you should move the equation for standard deviation above the explanation of variables.

The links in your references work, and you included primary resources. If possible, you should include the ISBN for the third and fourth references.

All in all, you did great in reorganizing the article so it's better for the audience to read. The tone is neutral with no biased opinions included. The transitions between the sections was smooth. Great work!