User:MaxD02/Laboratory glassware/Eschell20 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@MaxD02, @DaleHabe


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:DaleHabe/sandbox


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello, as a ChemE major, I found your additions to be very interesting; here is your peer review:

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes. Addition to the History section is on relevant, concise, and necessary to the page.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes. Some references such as the Donnelly, Alan citation dates 50 years ago. This may be a bit too old, but when considering it is referencing historical content, I think it is still 'up-to-date'.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - All content belongs that has been written. There is a brief mentioning that metal and ceramic were used prior to glass, so it might be worth mentioning more about that, particularly why and how the switch to glass was made. There is also a lot less information on more recent development of glassware, and more info could be provided on what borosilicate and PTFE are.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes. There is no bias in the information that is provided.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - I noticed there is a focus on glassware development in Europe and the US. Was there development of glass in other areas of the world? Or did glass technologies spread from the west to the rest of the world? This could be another topic to touch on.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No, there is no bias in the written information.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes, all sources seem to be reliable and relevant to the topic.
 * Are the sources current? - Sources seem to be current with the exception of the Donnelly, Alan source (1970).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- Yes, it seems sources are written by both male and female authors, and from various nationalities.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- Yes, links to referenced wiki pages work.

Organization

 * 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

 * There is already an image for the history section, so adding images isn't necessary

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Yes. the original history section was poorly organized and had many content gaps. Your additions have filled many of those gaps. I really enjoyed reading your section.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - You have organized the existing content better and added information to clarify some confusing vague info that was originally there, so it is much easier and interesting to read. You have also filled many content gaps and added some important information necessary to the history of lab glassware.
 * How can the content added be improved?- There were a couple of sentences that could be reworked
 * Mary the Jewess, an alchemist in Alexandria during the 1st century AD, is credited for the creation of some of the first glassware for chemical use including a device to heat such as the kerotakis which was used for the collection of fumes from a heated material. (this wording a bit confusing to me)
 * The rise of this chemical glassblowing opened chemical experimentation to everyone and led to a shift towards the dominate use of glassware in laboratories. (was it actually open to everyone, or just more accesible to people?)
 * Further important technologies impacting the development of laboratory glassware included the development of polytetrafluoroethylene, and a drop in price to the point laboratory glassware is, in some cases, more economical to throw away than to re-use. (this sentence is very unclear until I had read it over a few times)

Peer-review Response
Thank you for reviewing the draft, this helped a lot. I agree that some of the sentences added could be worded better to clarify somethings, I do plan on going back to rewrite some parts and this will help me focus on which parts to change. For the organization in general, separating and condensing information could help improve this and will be done before the final draft. It was mentioned that the Donnelly, Alan citation was a bit old. This citation was on the article before we started working on it however, along with some other peer reviews, it did make me realize that it would be beneficial if more sources were found to compare info off of each other. Also, it was pointed out that adding citations to texts, referenced in the article would be good and I am planning to do that moving forward. There were a lot of comments about the work that was on the original article and those comments will help me decide what section to work on next.