User:Publicscale/Octane/Ooogaboooga 101 Peer Review

General info
Publicscale
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Lead
Based on the sandbox the edits that have been made to the article start at the isomers section. The above intro (while not pasted in the sandbox) seem to be left as is. (Since no edits to the lead I will not access the content as none of that exists in the sandbox, only in the original article).
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?:

Content
Yes. Relevant and applicable content to times when an individual (outside of the science community) might run into this topic, ie fueling up on gas. Yes considering content. This meaning original definitions and current definitions of topic are up-to-date. Information is in fact based on current applications of the octane ratings. Examples of misunderstandings are current articles (within the last ~8 years) that circulate this misinformation. There seems to be a "Product and Use" section that only has headers. However, all other content fits and doesn't seem to be missing information. The article doesn't seem to deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps or underrepresented populations. However, it is apparent that there is quite a lot of misunderstanding around octane and octane rating. Considering this is a rating most people come across at least once a week (with a vehicle) one could argue this covers an underrepresented topic considering the the misinformation about it.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions: Yes. The article does not seem to push an agenda or strong bias. Technically no. The article doesn't seem to have a strong bias supporting any particular position. With that said, it does take two strong stances against two different articles information around the topic. If the information in these articles are inaccurate than the information is just that. It's hard to call that a bias for the truth. However, considering it's Wikipedia taking a stance against two distinct sources of information can come across as negative viewpoint on these sources or bias. Potentially rewriting parts of this section to sound a bit more neutral about misinformation as a whole around the topic could alleviate this. One could argue that without any expansion of other research or methods the information in the article is relying on Graham Edgar's method of iso-octane and n-heptane knock resistance to explain information. In a sense underrepresenting other viewpoints or research on the topic. However, if this the official rating then there this isn't really anyway to over or underrepresent viewpoints if its the accepted standard. Even if its just one persons method. No. Again other than to take a stance against the information provided in the two articles the two misunderstanding statements were taken from.
 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and references
Guiding questions: Yes information is supported by official, original and reliable articles. Yes. Whether is basically direct quotes/definitions or original articles outlining methods the citations match the information provided on the page. Yes. The updated current definition of the topic is provided from dictionary.com as well as a current and reliable energy and environmental article detailing the current method used for octane rating. Yes. Dictionary.com is up to date and the other articles are from years such as 2016. All references that are articles come from different authors and industries. Some universities, energy companies or just a dictionary publisher. Difficult to determine the representation of marginalized individuals without researching more into some authors (when named), however variety of academic and industry sources point to support general diversity of sources. Considering two articles listed were peer reviewed articles, other articles were from industries that deal directly with fuel, and the author was able to outlined misinformation from other articles there doesn't seem to be better sources. (Will note the article the author identified as having a misstatement, statement 1, 3rd citation, was cited earlier in the page supporting other information being stated. Potentially finding another source to support information above other than the article with the identified misinformation could be a better source and strengthen reliability of information). Yes all links in references work.
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:

Yes. Information is concise, clear and easy to read. No grammatical or spelling errors were noticed. Content is clearly sorted and paragraphs and statements are visually easy to read and follow. Only note is potentially providing an intro or connecting sentence below the "Octane Ratings of Octane Isomers" header before isomer pictures. This could help flow between headers above and flow into images below.
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have 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?

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

Yes. Really liked image of gas tank, helps connect readers with real world use of Octane rating making the information more applicable and beneficial to them. Added isomer images are clear and give nice examples of isomers. Yes. Images are captioned so simply looking at the pictures readers can understand what it represents. Unsure. If author took the picture of the gas station and generated the isomer images themselves than yes. Gas station image is nicely aligned with article. Nice that the isomer images are next to one another, however varying of image size is slightly less visually appealing.
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

Yes content provided has greatly expanded on readers connection and application of the topic at large. Adding great value to the page. As well article provided historical background of the octane rating and expanded upon breaking down the list of isomers. Providing readers with a stronger connection to the topic. Whether is be helping to connect the informations relevance to there day to day lives or by identifying misinformation out there they may have already come across about the topic. Content is also clear and easy to read. Simply finish adding wanted content. Adding a clear intro (whether that simply be using the original or adding there own, mainly so that it's easier to understand how they want the overall article to flow including their edits as it seems some content is rewritten). Finishing Production and Use section (I think if the author has time this is a great idea and can add value to the page by providing more fullness to the pages information and again providing another connection for readers day to there day with the topic. As said in part 1 maybe adding a little paragraph below the "Octane and Ratings of Isomers" section to better introduce isomer images and create a bit of a better flow between sections. Finally maybe consider rewriting a bit of the "Examples of misunderstanding" section to potentially sound a bit more neutral and tale a bit of a less targeted approach to talking about misunderstanding (this of course depending on the authors motive with this section, I like the idea and inclusion of this part as a whole though).
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall this is a great article with clear information, great connection for readers and an interesting and engaging approach to breaking down the topic of Octane and Octane Ratings.