User:SpiderBrooke./Chemical hazard/Starja8859 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? SpiderBrooke.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SpiderBrooke./Chemical hazard

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, you have not published your content to wikipedia yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No it does not.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the information has not been published yet.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and straight to the point, not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, you added additional information on types of chemical hazards, along with some examples. You also made a detailed, but to the point, addition of the routes of exposure and how to control different types of exposures.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes your two citations are from 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * From what you have in your sandbox draft, there is nothing missing or in the wrong spot. You have specific headings for the information you're providing and they follow the order by which you discusses them. Order by which it would make the most sense to your readers.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does not contain equity gaps or underrepresented populations, because the information provided does not discuss the implications for which someone specific would come into contact, it's broad and is not focused on if it is directly related to a specific group of people. This is something that could be added to the article; whether or not there are specific groups of people more susceptible to certain chemical hazards, or what specific occupations people are most likely coming in contact with these hazards. As opposed to broadly describing exposure type. It could be further analyzed as to specific aspects about these groups of people such as income, race, gender, etc.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, you do not have anything that would be deemed bias. You can tell everything is factually stated.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not necessarily, there could be some arguments when it comes to the right way to control these hazards or why you choose that specific information to publish, but ultimately your information is supported by facts and no where is your personal position stated.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think the "controlling exposure" section could be further analyzed, but also if your intentions are to be to the point, then you could also leave it. If you were to analyze that section more, I would recommend expanding on examples you provided.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, both of your citations that you provided are from secondary sources and from accredited websites.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the first source is from Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and the second source if from the United State Department of Labor. These websites do have a lot of good information and are backed by reliable source. I do think since you have two websites it would be beneficial to look for a peer reviewed article or another form of detailed information such as from our school's library to enhance the informations reliability.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes as stated above, they have both been published recently.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I couldn't find a lot of information of the sources from the US department of Labor website, but the Canadian website has a few spectrum of authors. I am not sure if you took your information from just specifically what the URL took me to on the website, or if you use other information, it makes finding specific authors a little harder. This is another reason I would encourage looking into a peer reviewed article to make it clear how valuable your source is.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Both links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * As state above, I do think you wrote this very well. It's well thought-out and by using your headings and also the tables you included, the content is easy to read and understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * In the paragraph underneath "inhalation", you stated, "Occupations were workers..." and it should be "Occupations where workers...". Also, in that same paragraph you state, "10,000 liters of air over a 8-hour day", it should be "an 8-hour day". In the section about contact with skin or eyes, I would recommend adding commons to "...eyes results in irritation and, in a large amount of instances, loss of vision and burns."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I appreciated how well you organized your sections were with headings and subheadings to make it clear what the different aspects of an area you were discussing.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I do think the content added more specifically identified the types of chemical hazards, routes of exposure, and proper treatments for exposure. If this hadn't been included, the article would have only listed such information instead of describing them.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Your content is well organized and put in the proper places for viewers to follow. I also think you do a nice job of providing the main, important information for the different subheadings and you don't get too detailed in your information, where the reader could get lost. It's pretty plain and simple, you address what the problems and the solutions to fix it.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * As previously stated above, I would look into adding another peer reviewed article to enhance the information you provided and maybe even give you more ideas on different parts of the article. Then I think it would be good to expand on the examples you provided to state how specifically they help reduce chemical hazards.