User:Namington4/Calorimeter/ScienceGoose Peer Review

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


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead section clearly defines what a calorimeter is, and briefly covers what the article will be about. I feel as though the lead section should have ended after the first paragraph, the explanation of the enthalpy was too detailed and specific to be in the lead section, which is supposed to be summarizing the article. Instead, this could be its own section, or included in another. The lead section however, doesn't touch on a lot of the contents of the article, but is understandable because there is a lot of information in it that I don't think really needs to be talked about in the lead. Maybe just add a sentence or two briefly touching each of the sections to add a little more about the contents of the article.

Content

All of the content added seems to be really well thought out and really understandable to read. I would like to see where the content is coming from as anything that was added, doesn't have a citation. Is this information from somewhere else or just an understanding of the topic, If it comes from somewhere else there needs to be credit given to the original authors. All of the content added definitely adds to the article in a positive way. Nothing added seems out of place. The content added is definitely more recent than some of the original references, I wonder if there's anything newer than 2015. I also had some struggles finding super recent articles so I understand! All of the content added is really great work though!

Tone and Balance

The tone is very neutral, I don't see how it could be biased. Nothing is looks like it is trying to persuade the reader about anything, it's just science and the way that things work. I also think everything in the article is touched on in a very balanced way, it doesn't seem like there are some things that have too much information or others that don't have enough.

Sources and References

There is a missing citation in the first paragraph under "Reaction calorimeters" section. After reviewing the entire article, I see there are bolded citations at the end, however when I click on them to see where they are at in the article, it refreshes and looks like it takes me back to the original article with the original references? I'm really not sure what is happening when I try to click on them maybe we can go over this if its an error in class. I actually don't see any in text citations at all, were they added? It looks as if the citations in the references were just pasted over top of instead of physically changing the citation. I think that may be why it tries to bring you back to the original article, because the reference exists in that article but not the sandbox one. Don't forget that you have to add in the citation in the text in order for it to update in the references, not just paste it on top of the old ones. If this isn't what is happening, again I'm not sure exactly why I can't find any in text citations or why the references bring me back to the original article.

Organization/Grammar

I have to say the organization of this article is amazing. All of the topics go in a great order that make sense, it is well written, and broken down into easily understandable sections.

There is a grammatical error in the first paragraph under reaction calorimeters, it states "to measure heats since," just remove the "s" at the end of heats.

I would change the sentence "although it is very less accurate" to "although it is much less accurate," or "although it is not as accurate," in the Heat Flow Calorimeter section, the use of very doesn't make sense and sounds choppy.

I'm not sure what is going on with the format in the "bomb calorimeters" section. Everything is weirdly spaced out, lines are cut off, and the last sentence isn't finished it just ends on "by." Is this still being worked on or is it just a formatting error from copying over the original article? Either way it should be fixed.

Images and Media

There aren't any images in the article that I saw so there isn't anything to reflect on. It might be nice to add some images of what the calorimeters look like and how they are used but I understand not putting any in because there are a lot of guidelines that come with adding images.

Overall Impressions

Overall, the content added to this article is really good! The improvements made really are great improvements. I will say it does seem to need some more work. Just work out some of the kinks like grammatical errors, formatting, and definitely fix the citation problem. Really great work!