User:Paperburner/User:Paperburner/sandbox/SWeng19 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? Paperburner
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Paperburner/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead is informative and contains all the necessary information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
The content is very complete and in-depth. There is no missing content or content that does not belong. It is a good representation of the work that has been done in this research area.

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 tone in this article is neutral and balanced. It would be best to mention the authors who initially did the NBO calculations just to be clear that those results are not from your own research.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used in this article are reliable and span a wide variety of primary and secondary sources from reputable sources. There are some parentheses with numbers left in the middle of the text though -- are these supposed to be there or are they from a first-draft copy of the article?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * 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? The article might be more digestible if it was broken into more sections (with sub-headings).

Organization evaluation
The content is well-written and easy to read. It could potentially be improved by breaking each topic into more sections with sub-headings. For example, in the section about electronic properties you could potentially make a sub-section about UV-Vis or Huckel theory or NBO. I also think that the synthesis section could come before the electronic properties section, but that is just a personal preference.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Some figure captions could be more detailed.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
Overall, the figures are great and very informative. The figure captions could be more detailed though -- for example, it would be useful to write in the caption what level of theory was used to generate those molecular orbitals. Having links to references in the figure captions would also be nice.

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation
This article fulfills all the requirements for a new Wikipedia article.

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 content added is very detailed and comprehensive.
 * How can the content added be improved? Breaking up the article into smaller sections would make it easier for readers to search for specific pieces of information about this topic. Figure captions could also be more detailed.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this is a very complete article which draws upon information from many different sources to give a complete and unbiased view of this topic. The content of the article is very detailed; however, it could be difficult for a casual Wikipedia reader to digest. I would suggest breaking it into more sections using sub-headings in order to make it easier to read, and making the figure captions more detailed in some cases as well.