User:Rickyc2002/Acid–base extraction/Xiaoxu Qing Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rickyc2002


 * 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
Lead:

The lead sections has seen many informative addition that helps the reader better comprehend the definition of Acid-Base extraction. It now conciesly and descriptively introduce the topic. There are re-organize of the original article structure. More refoerence are edited. There might need more conclusions of the following sections. Also sentences like "A separatory funnel is generally used to perform an acid-base extraction" might be too specific and may be put in the following sections.

Content:

One of the best edition is the enumeration of the common steps in the extraction. Compared with the original article, now the strucure is much clearer and more detailed. Some of the descriptions may seem to be too specific that focuses on specific reagents, possibly could be replaced with some more general cases. It may be better if they are shown together as an example separated from the general desctions of techniques. Also, it's nice to see that many of the references are up-to-dated and professional. Troubleshooting part may be written as the subtopic of techniques with addtional of some other potential problems that might occur in the process.

Also, it might be nice if each steps in techniques part could be conclude first. Then followed by a more detailed description.

Tone and Balance:

The added content are neutral. Some of the preferences on specific reagents are seen in the techniques. They might be a bit overrepresented but it is generally fine.

Sources and References:

Most of the references are reliable, some of them are even primary sources. There are few sources that seemed to be out of dated, but as long as they are still effective they are fine. Some of the ideas are from university websites, it might be better if they could be aided by some additional primary or secondary sources.

Images and Media:
There seems to be no images added. Maybe consider add some images on the techiques part to help illustrate some complex steps.

Overall this is a valid edit, many of the supportive and useful ideas are added. Nice work!