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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rickyc2002, Jlt156, Shionmoon


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rickyc2002/Acid%E2%80%93base_extraction?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, Comparing the new lead to the previous lead, I can see there is a huge improvement.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, but it gives a good overview on the topic as-a-whole so I'm not sure if it's necessary.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It doesn't include the limitations, alternatives, or troubleshooting sections in the introduction, but since these are smaller sections I think it would only need like one sentence about it!!
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead is really concise and not overly detailed. Good job!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * One of the sources is from 2013 but I think you used such a good variety of sources pertaining to one topic that I think it’s okay! But you might just want to double check that the source from 2013 is still up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, everything is relevant to the topic
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, there are no opinions in this article.
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, for the most part, but there is one source that I found that was from 2013 so you might want to see if there is a more recent source for the same information!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I don't think so, the sources are mainly from websites that discuss the procedure and also from PubChem. I don't know if many peer reviewed articles were used because I'm not sure how many scientific journals would be written about just this procedure on it's own!
 * 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.)
 * No, no news cites were used for this topic
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Link #18 doesn’t work, the one about lipophilicity
 * Reference #7 also doesn’t work, it links you to a search page and then nothing comes up!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it was really easy to understand
 * 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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is one image that is pixelated and kind of hard to understand.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the caption for the image makes it a bit easier to understand but I think it could use a little more detail.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes I believe so, it looks like the image was created by another wikipedian that isn't in this class.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I think that there should be a couple more images in order to help break-up the page a little bit, to ensure the page isn't just a wall of text!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the article is now a really good resource for anyone wanting to learn about acid-base extractions!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I really like how you included a step-by-step guide in the technique portion of the page!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * If you needed any ideas of a topic to add or something, you could give examples of the types of synthesis reactions that use acid-base extraction.
 * I also think that more pictures would be very effective in this article.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting