User:Rsvetlov/Basketane/Amassey1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rsvetlov


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead, and article in general, was only a few sentences to begin with. There has been a lot of expansion on the lead that gives more detail than was previously given. Although the article is extremely scarce, not having any other sections, I think the information added to the lead would be better suited under a "History" section or something of the sort. It is very detailed information and it should remain in the article, however the lead should be concise and not overly detailed. Maybe a summarization of the added information could stay in the lead, such as the patent date and what the patent was.

Content:

The added content is neutral with no apparent biases. The article is lacking sections though and is still just a lead. I think the sections that could be added are "History" where the detailed information currently listed in the lead is transferred to, and "Uses" (or something similar) that details what basketane is used for (in chemistry and in daily life if applicable).

Sources and References:

The four current references on the published basketane page are all relevant and useful to the article. More information could likely be gleaned from these references to build upon the article further. Reference two in the sandbox goes to a google patent about the diamond layers. I would try to see if there is a peer reviewed journal on this (maybe referenced in the patent?) to further support this information and replace the patent as a reference. In the sandbox reference list, sources 3 and 4 are the same article. I think that was unintentional, but they are referenced separately in the article so that should be double checked and condensed to 1 reference or corrected to an alternate fourth reference. The fourth reference, for example, could be changed to the article that reference 3 is "highlighting" or reviewing. Reference 5 seems to be a relevant, but maybe better sources could be found. Most of these sources are over 10 years old, some older, and seem a bit outdated. Are there any other sources that may be newer?

Images and Media:

The only image(s) on the page were there before the edits started and depict the structure of basketane. These are useful images and do not seem to need much editing.

Overall Impressions:

I think this article is off to a good start! It is still quite small with room for expansion, but the references are mostly relevant to the information and give a good start to citing the information. When expanding the article, it would be a good idea to check the "cited by" lists on the already used references to see if the newer journals (or whatever it may be) also contain useful information for the article.