User:Tristan-Xin/User:BASkeel/sandbox/Tristan-Xin 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? (provide username) 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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead is concise and reflects the content of this topic well. It briefly introduces the topic and highlights the most important section of the article. Although the Lead does mention the natural occurrence of phosphaalkynes, which is not present in the sections below, it is logical and needn't be changed or removed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is closely related to the topic. As far as I know, the article covers most aspects of the topic and include data that is up-to-date. The only thing that might be added to the reactivity section is phosphaalkynes acting as ligands and their consequent reactions. Apart from cycloaddition and oligomerization, phosphaalkynes can also undergo normal electrophilic or nucleophilic addition, but these reactions are less interesting.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is fairly neutral, and does not appear biased. This article presents its viewpoints well and provides sufficient proof that supports its point while not being so persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The content is backed up by several reliable secondary sources, such as review articles. All the sources provided are current research literature on this topic, and all the links work pretty well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is well-written and well-organized into several sections. As far as I am aware, there is no obvious error in the content.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The images are well-rendered and are helpful to understand the topic. All images used therein are the author's own work, thus adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This article is supported by several review articles. To the best of my knowledge, this article accurately represents most of the available literature on this topic. It also follows the patterns of other similar articles and is divided into several sections that are common for similar articles. The article is not linked to other articles yet, but it will be once we put the actual page online.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article is rather complete now. The content provides a thorough introduction into the phosphaalkynes and may serve as a good start point for someone who wishes to learn in depth about this topic. The images present in the article are of remarkable quality, and the way the author summarizes various aspects of the content into simple figures is also impressive. From my perspective, this article needn't any major improvements.