User:PGChem 300/Ion-selective electrode/Chloeczhou 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

Whose work are you reviewing?

PGChem 300, Anonchemwriter

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:PGChem 300/Ion-selective electrode
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Ion-selective electrode

Evaluate the drafted changes

Content

Relevance and Completeness: The content on ISEs is relevant, though brief. Expanding this section to explain the working principle of ion-selective electrodes—such as the ion-exchange process and potential measurement—would enrich the reader’s understanding. Additionally, discussing various types of ISEs (such as glass and polymer membranes) could highlight the versatility of this technology.
Equity Gaps: ISE applications in historically underrepresented fields could be explored, such as their use in global agriculture or water quality testing in underserved regions. Discussing these could make the article more comprehensive and address Wikipedia’s equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

Neutrality: The tone is neutral
Underrepresented Views: Incorporating varied applications in different fields could enhance balance by not overemphasizing one particular field, like analytical chemistry, over others.

Sources and References

Source Reliability and Coverage: The article currently relies on a single source. To strengthen reliability, additional peer-reviewed sources should be included, especially more recent literature. Expanding the references would provide a more comprehensive background for ISEs.
Diversity in Authorship: Isn't much diversity in the authorship, but this is attributed to there being one source.
Link Accuracy: Included article is accurate.

Organization

Clarity and Grammar: The writing is mostly clear, but there are minor grammatical improvements to consider. For instance, the phrase “a property that we wish to quantify” could be clarified to “the property under measurement” for readability.
Sectional Structure: If additional information on applications is added or other sections, it could benefit from sub-sections on different fields like biology, chemistry, and industry.

Images and Media

Enhancement of Understanding: An image illustrating an ISE or a diagram showing how ion selectivity works would be valuable additions. For example, a diagram of an ion-selective membrane could clarify the working principles discussed. Also, images for each type of membrane may also be helpful (under "Types of ion-selective membrane" section).
Captioning and Layout: N/A

Overall Impressions

Quality Improvement: The additions improve the article’s technical accuracy but could be more comprehensive to provide a rounded view of ISEs. Expanding content in specific areas—like references, technical details and diverse applications—would add value.
Strengths: The article’s strength lies in introducing the basic concept of ISEs and pointing out some applications, which provides a foundation for further development.
Suggestions for Improvement:
- Introduce more sources to support the content and ensure up-to-date, reliable references.
- Add more sections with clear headers to organize technical details, types, and applications.
- Consider adding an imagex or diagram to visually support complex information