User:TROLLSworldtour/Flowers of sulfur/Elbert Ainsteinium Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

TROLLSworldtour, Jmoon02 and Thebluecardigan,


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Flowers of sulfur

Lead
Lead concisely and clearly introduces the article's topic. Currently the lead does not have a brief discussion of the major sections the article discusses. There is no information present in the lead that the rest of the article does not link to or discuss. For the most part lead is concise, may be too concise. However, this could easily be remedied by having a small discuss about the major sections the article is going to talk about. The added sentence about the chemical composition of Flowers of Sulphur is a well placed addition.

Content
Content is up to date and does not include anything that does not belong in the article or relate to the topic. New additions have been made which equal to or greater than in size to the original content. The sentence about Sulphur distillation production of flowers of Sulphur provide an example of a more modern preparative method. Paragraph on production uses "Flowers of Sulphur" many times authors may consider using pronouns to reduce redundancy.

Tone and Balance
The tone is balanced and scientific. No view points are under or over stated and there is no attempt at persuading the readers. No claims are biased towards one reference or idea being supported by appropriate sources. Tone is similar to original article.

Sources and References
Sources and references have been overhauled by authors and introduce many modern literature sources such as scientific articles by diverse authors. Original article had many citations missing which have now been provided by the student authors. All source links work as intended. The content accurately reflects source material without direct or close paraphrasing. Sources 7, 8 and 10 are the same. The authors may want to cross check the date.

Organization
So far organization has been greatly improved from the original article. The authors have not only neatly divided each section into well defined paragraphs but have also added more relevant information in the middle of the already existing paragraphs. Minor typos or grammatically errors noticed. Some paragraphs may gain from conciseness and improving structure of sentence. Authors may want to take another look at the changing "is" to "are" or similar verb changes when referring to Flowers of Sulphur.

Images and Media
No new media and images are introduced at the time of review. Article could benefit from some images such as of Flowers of Sulfur or a structure.

Overall Impressions
The authors have done a great job overall. New information added is relevant and inserted into the appropriate parts of paragraphs. Given the article is a stub article, lots of information has been added and authors should continue maintaining conciseness as they have been. Article can benefit from a few more new sources as currently one source has been used several times, images and a small discussion of major sections in the lead. The discussion of properties of flowers of Sulphur is appreciated and the authors may want to consider making a small section about this.