User:Ntmy777/Solid-state chemistry/Cic12345 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hotsaucefanatic


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ntmy777/Solid-state_chemistry?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Solid-state chemistry

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.)

Hi Julia! I really enjoyed your additions to the Synthesis section:)

I will be leaving my review following the guiding questions provided by Wikipedia.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead section was not updated. It may be helpful to add a short sentence in the introduction to briefly introduce the various methods of solid-state compound synthesis.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes! Overall, the lead is a brief and sufficiently covers the general topics addressed in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date?

To my knowledge, all this information is up to date and definitely relevant. I noticed, however, sources 9, 10, and 12 were quite old (from 1984 and 1890). I am not sure these sources are still current or of new research is available. It may be useful to double check that.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Nope! Everything appears to belong.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, but I don't think this project is trying to deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The content feels neutral and unbiased.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

May be helpful to add more information regarding solution methods of synthesis.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Some content is missing citations. Melt methods only references citation 6 at the end. If this reference is used multiple times in the melt section, you may want to include the superscript throughout the paragraph. Solution methods sections has no citations. First paragraph of gas reactions is missing sources after the first sentence


 * Are the sources current? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Most sources are current. Some sources are a bit dated (source 2, 9,10,12). Overall, the sources appear to come from reputable journals. The authors are diverse and include historically marginalized individuals.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes! This was written very clearly and concisely.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I did not find 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?

Yes. The synthesis section in broken down into the different methods.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes. A more comprehensive/complete explanation of synthetic methods was added to this article.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The strength of the added content is how it is written in a easy-to-understand form and improves the readability of the published article. Good job!


 * How can the content added be improved?

The content can he improved by adding a bit of history to each section. I liked how the Intercalation section provided a slice of history through the mention of Chinese porcelain. It would be cool if something similar was added to the other synthetic methods as well. This would provide the reader with some more context and may help them understand the concepts better!