User:Overworked.raposo/Chemoselectivity/ChilinCapybara Peer Review

General info
Overworked.raposo
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Overworked.raposo/Chemoselectivity
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Chemoselectivity

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Overworked.raposo, here is the peer review from ChilinCapybara!

Lead

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


 * The lead sentence remains the same as the original lead sentence. The technical terms in the description was simplified and the editor did a great job in explaining the concept clearly.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

- The contents added were relevant to the topic. The editor did a great job on expanding the topic and also explained the chemical preferences well.

In summary, you added the sections 'electrophilicity', 'Metal-assisted selectivity' and 'reducing and oxidizing sources'. I can see that you've divided and expanded the examples which was originally in a paragraph of lead section. You exemplified the relative selectivity of the carbonyl functional groups.

- However, chemoselectivity sounds like a subtype of the selectivities in chemistry, the editor can potentially distinguish it from chemoselectivity, regioselectivity and stereoselectivity etc.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

The contents added are neutral, they are quoted from the public, authoritative sources that have minimum bias. I can also see a comprehensive mentioning of the related functional groups and the reactions that are enough for the general public to understand this topic.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - The content is about introducing the concept of chemoselectivity to the audience, so far I don't see any attempt of persuading the audience.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, they are either from chemistry textbooks from the authoritative institutions or the published
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this. ) - yes, the definition for chemoselectivity according to IUPAC is accurate.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the newly added articles are comprehensive enough to cover the contents in the article.
 * Are the sources current? - somehow, the latest source seem to be published in 2010, but I understand that with this specific topic the source does not need to be very up-to-date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources are from various authors from different institutions.
 * 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. ) - All the sources are good, but I can see most of them are from ACS, so maybe try to find some references from textbooks?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the links to the online journals do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I can see that you have addressed different conditions for the selectivity.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, the sentences seem to be fluent to me, I had no problem reading them.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, you did a good job in expanding the contents while still keeping them organized. However, it did not seem obvious to me what the section 'Reducing and oxidizing sources' is addressing until I read its contents. You might want to replace 'sources' with 'reagents'

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? -yes the ranking in the carbonyl reactivity certainly helps the reader to visualize the chemoselectivity.
 * Are images well-captioned? - Yes, the descriptions are precise and informative
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images are laid out clearly and easy to understand.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - The edited version has greatly improved the quality of the article. The article overall feels more complete. More brief distinctions between chemoselectivity, stereoselectivity and regioselectivity can be added to better help the audiences navigating through the controls in chemistry.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - the editor did a great job in providing the examples of chemoselectivity. The article has greatly improved in terms of the examples of the functional groups and their reactivity with various reagents. The concept of chemoselectivity is greatly illustrated through well-organized examples as well as the images. The editor also provides a better insight on the reason for the preference on one functional group over the other under certain conditions. The added images are straightforward, and easy for the audience to understand.