User:ScienceGoose/Spontaneous combustion/1MightBeRight Peer Review

Lead: The lead has been updated by my peer, but it was limited. The lead has a solid introductory sentence already that briefly, but clearly, describes the topic. The lead makes it clear where the article is going with the following sections. The sections are simple enough where the editor may benefit from only a sentence or two to describe the following sections.

Content: All of the content added by the editor is not only related to the article, it is actually useful information for the reader. In the section that goes over the "Affected Materials", some materials could've had more detail, but was given by the editor. A good example of this was in the "Oil seeds and oil-seed products" section. The reader may be wondering what these may be. The editor gave examples such as flax seeds, sunflower seeds, and soybeans. The editor also includes a new section, "Predictions and Preventions". It gives extra depth to the topic that a reader may find either interesting or helpful.

Tone and Balance: The content added is neutral. There is no indication of any sides presented in the article. All the information in the article appears to given based on fact rather than opinion.

Sources and References: I followed the links to their source. The editor used trusted sites, such as ScienceDirect to find articles related to the topic and written by several different authors, all of whom I checked are reputable. The articles provide relevant and reliable information that the editor used properly in editing their article.

Organization: The information added by the editor is properly done so. It is easy to read and grammatically correct. The information added is also placed in the sections that make the most sense to put them in.

Images and Media: Editor did not add images.

Overall Impressions: I would say that the content added by the editor benefitted the article. Smaller bits of information gave needed detail for some of the materials in the "Affected Materials" section. The new section added at the end of the article was a good move by the editor because it created more depth to the topic. It made it so the article wasn't just about the "what" and "why", but also about how we can prevent it.

As for what can be improved, I would say that among the "affected materials", I would give more detail to charcoal. Like what are "hot spots" that develop from the charcoal's preparation? It was said that there are "many factors" that determine how long they're exposed to air in order to not be hazardous. Giving examples or explaining how the time period can change from "eight days" to less or more, may be helpful in perfecting the article.

Good job all around though!

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)