User:Norquay917/Peroxide/Greenflower275 Peer Review

General info
Norquay917
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Norquay917/Peroxide
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Peroxide

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 peer did a great job in updating the lead to reflect new content.

The lead has an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describe the article's topic. This lead has been kept from before the peer do any changes, but it still works fine.

The lead lacks the mentioning of peroxide's variable classes that are explained in the paragraphs below the lead. Other areas that need to be addressed in the lead are addressed. There's enough background covered in the lead for readers to carry on reading the paragraphs below that.

The lead doesn't include any information that is not present in the article. The peer did a great job of making sure the information from the lead coordinates with the information in the article.

The updated lead is not overly detailed and has sufficient information. However, like I mentioned above, having some mentioning of peroxide's variable classes would be better.

Content:

The peer successfully added contents that are relevant to the topic, and that are not covered in the article before

The content added on to the page are rather old. However, those content should not cause any problems as they are essentially facts.

The peer made sure that there was no irrelevant information added into the article. However, I suggest adding some information about the importance of peroxides and the chemical properties of peroxides.

The peer chose an article that hasn't been well developed and written on Wikipedia

Tone and Balance:

The peer added neutral content

There wasn't any claim that appear heavily biased toward a particular position

There are no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints

The content doesn't attempt to persuade reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References:

I couldn't find any secondary source on the fact that O-O linkage was believed to be monatomic and that peroxide is an oxide with greatest quantity of oxygen.

The content accurately reflect what the cited sources say for reference #4, but not for reference #5

The sources are pretty historical so they don't reflect the available literature on the topic

The sources are not current. They are from 2004 and 1804

The sources were written by a diverse spectrum of authors. They included some historically marginalized individuals where possible

There are no better sources that I could find that are peer reviewed and cover the same information as reference #4 and 5

Both links of reference #4 and 5 works

Organization:

The peer adds in new content that are easy to read and understandable. The new information is concise and clear.

Most of the content don't have any grammatical error except for one sentence. I suggest putting the comma after "This is due to the fact that when it was discovered". The sentence then becomes: " This is due to the fact that when it was discovered, it was believed to be monatomic."

The contents that are added flows well with the previous version of the article and are well-organized.

Images and Media:

The article includes images that enhance the understanding of the topic

The images are well-captioned

All images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations

Images are organized neatly in the article

Overall Impressions:

The content added improved the overall quality of the article

The strengths of the added content is that it provides readers with more background information about peroxides regarding naming and a more succinct definition of what a peroxide is. The added content is appropriate to the topic of the article. The added content doesn't have any biases. The sources added reflect a diverse spectrum of authors. Overall, the added content was easy to read, comprehensible and well-organized.

The content can be improved by adding some suggested information above like the chemical properties and importance of Peroxides. The peer can also fix the lead section to include what will be the subtopics that are going to be talked about in the article. The peer should consider finding sources that are backed up by reliable secondary source of information, and make sure that the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say. I also suggest checking over grammatical errors, avoid the use of passive voice, use simple words when possible, for example: exists as= is or this is due to the fact that= This is because