User:TROLLSworldtour/Flowers of sulfur/Ishachahal Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jmoon02, Thebluecardigan, TROLLSworldtour


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:TROLLSworldtour/Flowers of sulfur


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

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.)

Lead

 * The Lead has significantly more information than before.
 * The Lead has a give a good introduction to what flowers of sulphur are and some of the names for it.
 * The lead mentions the of production flower sulphur but the article doesn't go over the next topic in the article which are the uses of flower sulphur. The writers could potentially summarise the article by saying briefly stating the uses of flower sulphur as they talk about that later.
 * The lead does a good job of linking to other information as it links to the Sulphur Institute and couple of other things.
 * The lead is concise and provides a quick overview of what flowers of sulphur are for someone who is looking for a definition

Content

 * The content is relevant to the topic of interest and it provide insightful information on the uses and production of flowers of sulphur.
 * The added information appears to be up to date as it is derived from fairly recent papers
 * The article could use more information about the properties of flowers of sulphur, but otherwise all the content belongs.
 * This contribution has definitely filled a wikipedia knowledge gap as the article lacked a lot of information, the writers have done a good job finding more relevant information about this topic and have given this article more substance.

Tone and Balance

 * The tone seems to be very neutral and unbiased
 * The claims are just stating facts and do not have any biased undertones
 * Viewpoints are evenly represented as only objective facts were presented
 * The contribution does not persuade the reader

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * The contribution appears to backed up with journal articles
 * The sources were used accurately but more information could used form them to make a bigger contribution. especially from the paper "THE ANTIBACTERIAL PROPERTIES OF SULFUR" where more information about the properties of flowers of sulphur could be dervived
 * The sources reflect the available literature on the topic as they include papers from the 1947-2018
 * There is one relatively current paper form 2018 but the rest are quite old, could use more recent papers
 * All the sources seem to be peer-reviewed articles which is good since you know the information is reliable.
 * The links work well

Organization

 * The content is concise and organized in a clear way with well-defined headings
 * There are no gramatical errors

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * The content added definitely improved the article but more information need to be added for the article to be complete. A more in-depth look at the history of and discovery of Flower sulphurs could potentially be added
 * The biggest strength of the content added is that it is better cited that before and statements in the article can be backed by reliable peer-reviewed sources.
 * The content added can be improved by added more subtopics like the history and discovery of flowers of sulphur.