User:Shiba111/Clemmensen reduction/Wilsondaily Peer Review

Lead:

The lead does a good job of introducing the topic and describing what a clemmensen reduction is and gives some insight on its applications. The language could use some improvements, I noticed there were some run on sentences in the second paragraph of the introduction. Some minor editing could fix this issue. Shiba111 briefly describes the mechanistic steps in the intro which is a good opener for the mechanism section in the article. The author also mentions mozingo reduction, and the wolf-kishner reaction but doesn't bring it up in the rest of the article. I would cut this part out, unless you add it somewhere else in the article.

Content:

The additional content added to the article is relevant and improves its quality. I liked the images that author added, both the mechanistic scheme and the dibarrelane reaction both provided good visual aids to the argument. The content is relatively the same from the original article which I think is okay but the language could be improved. There are some sentences in the article which could be improved by splitting into multiple sentences or cutting out some useless words and shortening an idea. The content is all up-to-date and provides some insight into applications, however some more applications could be added.

Tone & Balance:

I think the content in the article is neutral and doesn't present any biases. The content isn't persuasive in any direction and it doesn't underrepresent or overrepresent anyones viewpoints.

Organization:

I think the organization could be improved. I liked that you split up the content from the original article into the description and mechanism while adding content on applications. However, I think that some information in the introduction that could be expanded on. Like I said earlier, you mention the mozingo reduction, and the wolf-kishner reaction but don't bring it up again. I think if you talk about it in the introduction you should talk about it again, maybe by comparing its mechanism in the rest of the article. If you don't want to do that and think it may be off topic, then I would cut it out. I think the rest of the organization of the article is good.

Overall impressions:

I think the article is good and presents relevant information when explaining the clemmensen reduction. I liked the organization of the article and how you split up the mechanism and applications into different sections. I think the articles language could be improved to increase clarity. I also think that some of the content mentioned should be expanded throughout the article if you mention it in the introduction. Overall, the article is very good and has definitely been improved from the original.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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