User:Mcalandra/Volatile organic compound/ToxicologyVerify Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mcalandra


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The 'Lead' section is concise and short, not overly long, and clearly describes the article's topic

The lead has a content section added so that audience can navigate to a particular topic/information regarding VOC's

The lead does not contain any information that is not later discussed about in the 'Content' section

Content:

Within the 'Biologically generated VOC's' section, the statement, "Emissions are affected by a variety of factors, such as temperature, which determines rates of volatilization and growth, and sunlight, which determines rates of biosynthesis" makes a claim that temperature determines rates of volatilization and growth; this statement needs to be backed by an article/study/organization

Within the 'Anthropogenic Sources' section, the statement, "The most prevalent VOC is ethane, a relatively inert compound" makes a claim that the most prevalent VOC is ethane and is not backed by any data/reference

Within the 'Anthropogenic Sources' section, the statement, "Approximately 12 billion litres of paint are produced annually" makes a claim on data without any scientific backing/reference/etc.

Within the 'Indoor VOC's' section, a term 'bake-out' in relation to newly built building is not defined - need to know what this term refers to in this context

The content added within the article is relevant to the topic and includes up to date material/information to support claims

There does not appear to be any gaps in information (no missing content)

No content seems out of place

Tone and Balance:

The content added appears neutral and does not seem to favor a particular bias

I do not think that any viewpoints are underrepresented within the article

The text within the article is not persuasively written to audiences

Sources and References:

Majority of the content is backed by relevant, reliable sources aside from the few statements lacking data to back the claim as discussed in the 'Content' section of this peer review

The sources are relatively recent in scientific discovery time (at most two decades ago - for most sources) and the content accurately reflects what has been found within the referenced articles/studies

I do not believe that there exists better articles to back the information provided within the article

The links provided throughout the paper navigate to the correct source/article/study

Organization:

The content is very well written, providing concise and accurate information in a very presentable way (i.e., readers with no prior knowledge on the topic should be able to understand the information rather well)

The content does not appear to have any grammatical issues

The content is well organized as each section within the article follows a previous statement, concern, fact, information, etc. It is very easy to follow through each section and maintain a grasp on the subject at hand regarding the article

Images and Media:

There are several images throughout the text that help better understand the topic, such as showing potential sources of VOC's being discussed

All images are well-cited and has an accompanying caption to describe what is being viewed, why, and who is the source of the image

The images are situated in a pleasing manner (well organized)

I believe that the images provided follows Wikipedia's regulations on media

Overall Impression:

The article has many strengths, one in particular is the organization and simple language used to convey the information to a reader (especially ones that are not well-versed in the subject)

The content could be enhanced by some of the suggestions within the 'Content' section of this peer review, such as definitions of terminology or terms that may be new; data/articles/studies to back up particular claims