User:PineappleCinnamon/Aromaticity/HighQualityWater Peer Review

General info
PineappleCinnamon
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead - The lead includes a good introductory sentence but does not contain a brief introduction of the article sections. Reforming the lead section to include information about the following sections would lead to improvements.

Content - There doesn't appear to be much content that was actually added. Instead, content was cut and the edits that were made appear to be rewrites. The added sources are up to date, but a vast majority of the original content and sources was cut. Lots of the original content could be added back in to improve the article.

Tone and Balance - The tone is neutral and there is no apparent bias. However, the tone is also rather vague, with phrases like "After about 100 years", "tend to be", and "relatively recent discovery". Swapping these phrases out for facts will improve the article's tone.

Sources and References - The listed sources in the sandbox all appear to be from textbooks or informational websites. While textbooks are a decent source, it would be good to see other sources, especially some peer-reviewed academic papers.

Organization - The overall construction of the article is good, going from history to characteristics to compound varieties. The writing and grammar are good but aren't as factual as one would expect for a Wikipedia article.

Images and Media - There were no images or media added in the edits.

Overall Impressions - It appears that the article is being rewritten, when perhaps it doesn't need to be. Focus more on improving the areas of the original article than rewriting the information that is already there. Make sure to diversify the sources and look for peer-reviewed articles to add.