User:Tristan-Xin/User:BASkeel/sandbox/SWeng19 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? BASkeel
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BASkeel/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation
Overall, this is a very concise and informative Lead. The sections of the article are not explicitly outlined, but the Lead is written in a way which touches upon each of the major sections of the article (synthesis, structure/bonding, reactivity).

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
All of the content is relevant and up-to-date. There is no content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone of the article is objective. No particular viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good sources and references.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the first sentence of the "Structure and Bonding" section, cannot should be 1 word. Other than that small typing error, there are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The organization of this article is logical and the content is clear and easy to read. The figures make the information very digestible and memorable.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, although it would help to mention that the computational parameters used were also from the Lucas et al. paper, just to be clear that this is not original research.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The figures used in this article are very clear and easy to understand. The only thing I think that would be nice to add is a short statement explaining why 1,2 additions are part of the pinwheel in the Cycloaddition section even though 1,2 additions are not strictly a part of this family of reactions.

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources looks to be a good mix of primary and secondary sources spanning multiple decades of work.
 * 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? Yes - follows nearly the same format as the current article for alkynes. An image at the top of the article (see alkyne article) could be nice.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation
This article meets the Notability requirements and contains a list of sources that span multiple decades of research on this topic. The formatting matches articles on similar topics.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is clearly organized and provides a solid summary of the state of research on this topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? Small improvements can be made which include clarifying figure captions and fixing small typos.

Overall evaluation
This article on an important class of molecules that does not yet have its own Wikipedia page draws upon a variety of primary and secondary literature spanning multiple decades of research from peer-reviewed journals. The content is written in a clear and unbiased way. The first two main sections (Synthesis; Structure and Bonding) are very comprehensive, with figures that are informative and clear. If anything could be added, the final section on Reactivity could be expanded upon.