User:Meghanwu/High performance thin layer chromatography/Mxmansa Peer Review

General info
Meghanwu
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Meghanwu/High performance thin layer chromatography
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * High-performance thin-layer chromatography

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 first paragraph of the lead has been updated. The first sentence is very clear and provides a focused introduction to the topic. However, although it is cited so that the reader can visit another link to read more information if they would like to, the lead also mentions LODs and and automation and they are not discussed in the article itself. I also believe that it would be beneficial to move the portion about spot capacity to somewhere else in the body of the article because it is a bit too in depth for the introduction. The mode does not summarize a few of the main points of the article such as mode of HPTLC, HPTLC application, and HPTLC methodology. I think this is a strong lead already, but these few improvements would be beneficial!

Content:

The content does not include anything about equity gaps, however, I think this would be difficult to mention in relation to HPTLC anyways. The rest of the content is relevant and up-to-date. Could possibly provide more examples of instrumentation.

Tone and balance:

The paper is written neutrally. However, it may be useful to also discuss the cons of HPTLC, if there are any.

Sources and references:

Check sources. For example, the last link does not work. There are also more citations needed under the subtopic: Mode of HPTLC. The sources are reliable and current. There are also sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors, including people of colour and women.

Organization:

The content is broken down into sections that make sense and are relevant to the topic. However, Rf stands for retention (according to a quick Google search), so I would update this. Otherwise, it is easy to read.

Images:

Needs images.

Overall impressions:

I think this is a strong article, however, it is a bit chunky. Sentences such as "Le Roux's research team assessed HPTLC for determining salbutamol serum levels in clinical trials and concluded that it is a suitable method for analyzing serum samples" could be expanded on or removed entirely. I also think the paper would benefit from listing cons as well as including images that go along with the information to help the audience understand the topic more. Good job!