User:Gracelyn099/Secondary (Chemistry)/Siluna Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gracelyn099/Secondary (Chemistry)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Secondary (chemistry)

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

I like that you have a clear structure; keep those subheaders. It's great that you have a clear plan to expand such a small article, and I like that you mention some common reactions with the secondary groups. I think you can definitely keep adding more information on secondary group reactions. Can you add figures to illustrate them?

Unfortunately, I was distracted because the language used is very odd and doesn't seem fitting for a Wikipedia article. I have tried to organize my feedback into four categories so that it is easy to read.

In many cases, the language is not concise and sometimes goes off-topic. Think of the Brogan textbook :)[edit]

For example: "Contrary to secondary alcohols, secondary amines now contain a middle Nitrogen instead of a carbon."
- This sentence is in a completely different section from the alcohols, so I don't recommend you talk about alcohols. The sentence could theoretically be shortened to "A secondary amine is a nitrogen bonded to two "R" groups."
For example: "A secondary amine consists of a nitrogen bonding with only a single hydrogen and two "R" groups."
- "consists of" can be replaced with "is" (see Brogan textbook) and "only" can be deleted because it is redundant with "single".
- There are many other examples of redundant or fancy words that can be cut.
For example: "Phosphines are used as a fumigant to combat insect infestation found in sealed containers, such as silos or barrels containing grains."
- IDK why you are talking about this when the article is about secondary functional groups.
In general, you should combine sentences explaining basic chemical properties (e.g. "nitrogen has 5 valence electrons") with the main point you are arguing (e.g. "nitrogen has only three bonds") for a smoother flow (e.g. "because nitrogen has 5 valence electrons, it will be bonded to three atoms with a lone pair left over").

Strange formatting is used?[edit]

Splitting up the table is a strange choice because it is separates the rows from the column headers. IMO It would be better to restore the table and use new, original figures to illustrate the different functional groups within their own section.

Some subheaders are italicized?
Element names e.g. "carbon" aren't typically capitalized.

The individual sentence structures feel unintuitive. For clarity, put the subject at the beginning of the sentence.[edit]

For example: "If a carbon has 4 substituents and one of them is a Hydrogen, two are 'R' Groups, and one is a hydroxyl (-OH) group, it is considered a secondary alcohol."
- This sentence would be much easier to read if you started it with "A secondary alcohol is..."
For example: "When a molecule undergoes a chemical process in which it loses electrons or gains an additional bond with an oxygen atom, this is considered oxidation."
- Same idea; you can start the sentence with "Oxidation is...". The underlined parts can be deleted for conciseness.

Who is the audience? It feels inconsistent.[edit]

For example: "To determine if an alcohol is secondary you must identify the groups..."
- I don't think second person (you) is standard for Wikipedia articles. Just tell me what a secondary alcohol is :), be concise.
For example: "The oxidation of secondary alcohols often gives rise to ketones, which is an oxygen double bonded to two 'R' groups."
- I find it odd that you explained what a ketone is (feels slightly off-topic and too basic) when you can link the Wikipedia article instead.
For example: "Specifically, secondary amides participate in reactions such as tautomeric equilibria with thioamides, ortho lithiation or a simple reaction such as a deportation event using a strong base"
- Ignoring the typo, there are some very technical terms followed by an extremely simplistic one. This also makes it feel copy-pasted???
For example: "Secondary is a general term that can also be applied to other molecules; the principals seen in these examples can be further applied to other functional group containing molecules. The ones shown above are common molecules seen in many organic reactions..."
- This should be in another section near the beginning because Wikipedia articles don't have conclusions. It also feels too wordy.