User talk:Kekekandy/Ligand

Peer-review
Peer review from section 109:

Lead:

The lead has not really been updated by the user, however the lead in the original article is very long. Maybe the user can help reduce that section.

content:

The user expands on the hapticity section and ligand exchange section. These sections are underdeveloped in the original article so it is good that the user is helping to fix that. The content seems up to date and relevant and is helpful in adding to the quality of the article.

Tone and balance:

The content is written in a neutral tone, no bias is observed in the text. There does not seem to be any bold claims, everything stated is supported by a source!

Sources and references:

The sources are mostly relevant, most of them are from 2023 so very up to date. There are a couple of older references from early 200's and late 90's so it might be a good idea to try and find some more recent papers to reference. They have an extensive bibliography. The citation link all seem to work well.

Organization:

I think this is organized well, the user is adding two sub sections which are distinct from each other but help develop the overall topic of the paper.

Images and Media:

no images are added. Maybe you can add an image for hapticity or ligand exchange.

Overall:

Overall this article is well done, I believe the contributions you are making will help develop the main article. You might want to consider finding a couple more recent sources and including some images. The quality of the writing is good and unbiased and is up to the standards of Wikipedia. good job!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kekekandy


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kekekandy/Ligand - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ligand - Wikipedia
 * Ligand - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
- I can see that you are adding to the hapticity section and ligand exchange reactions sections

- This is good since these sections are the least developed in the original page

- you also go into specific reactions

- I appreciate also that you only did a brief summary, not a whole long paragraph on these specific reactions since they already have a wikipedia page

- if the suzuki reaction has a page then this should be linked as well

- There is a good amount of sources present and there are primary sources as well

Lead/ content

- The hapticity portion, a good amount has been added here

- I do not think anything "more" needs to be added to hapticity since the topic of hapticity already has an article that exists

- The opening for ligand exchange provides concise detail to understand the topic with credible sources

Tone and balance

- overall tone is neutral, matching the wikipedia guidelines

- Good balance between the two sections you expanded on

- not too much or too little on either, but reflecting on what is currently known and what sections already have wikipedia pages dedicated to them

Sources and references

- a good amount of secondary sources

- a mix of older and newer 2023 sources so your information is very up to date

- you also include a few primary reference sources

- your content reflects the information found in sources and paraphrased

- I checked some of the sources and they work fine.

images

- I see that you are planning to insert these later

Organization

- Currently the organization works fine

- Just ensure that they are going to the right spots when placed on the original article

- Is there another way to indicate subcategories of different types of reactions?

- ie. indent?

Overall

- I think this page is a very strong wikipedia article.

- you have a lot of meaningful content additions that are concise

- I personally do not see much to be improved unless you are thinking of expanding other parts of the wikipedia article such as "Ligand-protein-binding-database" Audiolosh (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)