User:Rickyc2002/Acid–base extraction/Jmoon02 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rickyc2002, Jlt156, Shionmoon


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Rickyc2002/Acid–base extraction


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Acid–base extraction

Evaluate the drafted changes
Suggestion: adding more photos and images to help understanding

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - A new lead has been updated and cited.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes. New citation added and compiled.


 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes and no. Many citation are of website, that do not indicate when it was updated, only when it was retrieved. But most of articles is from after 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? -Yes
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: No

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes? (I am not sure if Chem Libre Text are considered a reliable source, although I do use them myself)


 * Are the sources thorough - Yes they are a mixture of articles and websites
 * Are the sources current? - Yes and no. Many citation are of website, that do not indicate when it was updated, only when it was retrieved. But most of articles is from after 2000s.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * 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.) - Yes As mentioned earlier, try to replace Chem Libre Text with another source if possible. Or update the references; a google search shows the author to be Lisa Nichols

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is easy to read
 * 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 it has not deviated from the original article.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - Yes. The level of references improved very much from 3 to 24
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Added to detailed explanation.

Additional Questions


 * No added media: could be remedied.

This is a very impressive work completed