User:Siluna/Group 10 element/Jmoon02 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Siluna, Sliverash


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Siluna/Group_10_element?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Group 10 element

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Lead
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - No Content
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes and no. Many citation are of website, that do not indicate when it was updated, only when it was retrieved. But most of articles is from after 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No  Tone and Balance
 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: No Sources and References
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Some but not all. Here's some examples from your sandbox draft where I think citations might be useful to improve the article: -"In 1804, J. B. Richter determined the physical properties of nickel using a purer sample, describing the metal as ductile and strong with a high melting point. The strength of nickel-steel alloys were described in 1889 and since then, nickel steels saw extensive use first for military applications and then in the development of corrosion- and heat-resistant alloys during the 20th century." Since this is history, I think a citation is needed  -"Platinum complexes are commonly used in chemotherapy as anticancer drugs due to their antitumor activity. Palladium complexes also show antitumor activity, yet it is labile compared to platinum." No citation on biological role and toxicity.
 * Plus a couple more diverse citations could be used.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, citations have beedn diversified.
 * Are the sources current? - No most citations from 1900s
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * 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.) - Most are already peer reviewed article or textbook/handbook.  Organization
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is easy to read and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - Yes. Overall impressions
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - Not much has been changed in terms of writing, I feel like more content or graphics could be added to improve the quality of article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Citations are more diversified.  Additional Questions  I found it very interesting that the history section was the largest of the article, perhaps you could inprove upon the other sections?