User:Osuprunchik/E-Z notation/Onievesl Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Osuprunchik
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Osuprunchik/E-Z notation

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? n/a
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? n/a
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? n/a
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? n/a
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? unknown
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The additional content describing the example for the cis/trans figure in the original article may not be needed.

Content evaluation
After reading the article the E/Z conformation was described in the original article with the sentences below:

"If the two groups of higher priority are on opposite sides of the double bond, the bond is assigned the configuration E (from entgegen, German: [ɛntˈɡeːɡən], the German word for "opposite")."

"If the two groups of higher priority are on the same side of the double bond, the bond is assigned the configuration Z (from zusammen, German: [tsuˈzamən], the German word for "together")."

Therefore the additional content may be superfluous.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
The added content was written from a neutral standpoint.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no, but neither is existing content
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? no
 * Are the sources current? 1993
 * Check a few links. Do they work? no

Sources and references evaluation
I could not find the one source that was present in the original article and it may be outdated as well (1993). However, considering that the content added was a desciption of a figure already present in the article it does not need citation but the article as a whole needs to be cited.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes but it was written in third-person inclusive tense
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
The content added was clear and concise however it was written in the third-person inclusive tense.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? n/a
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? n/a
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? n/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The image did need more description that what was provided in the original article and provides a bit more detail on substituents priority.
 * How can the content added be improved? Change the tense of the content added

Overall evaluation
The content added does go into more detail into the existing image but redundancy may be an issue due to the brief descriptions of the E/Z conformations. The content added was written well and does add considerable description to the images. The only aspect of the content I would change is the tense of the first sentence of the newly added content.