User:Cic12345/Alpha hydroxy acid/TChem987 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]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Cic12345

Link to draft you're reviewing: Edited Article
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Original Article

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Areas edited:

Lead: Paragraph 2 (reworded)

The edits to this section make it sound like a story, which is not the purpose of the article. I agree that original article has a couple run-on sentences, however, I feel you may have over corrected as the paragraph feels choppy and the sentences do not flow very well into each other. I would recommend adding some transition sentence material and/or increase the length and combine a few of the new sentences. I appreciate the edits to remove ancillary material about pKas, that was unnecessary info and good edits. I would recommend clarifying that AHAs are weak acids as it currently sounds as if you are saying they are strong acids. Maybe just specify that they have much lower pKas than many other carboxylic acids.

Lactide-based polymers (added section)

Similar comments regarding flow mentioned in Lead section edits, I would try and make sure that everything flows nicely. I would also love to see and expansions to general condensation polymers and include other examples of AHAs, not just lactic acid. I found some articles quite easily on the use of glycolic, citric, and mandelic acid polymers that I think would add value. The second paragraph in the section offers good application for the polymers described, I found this piece to be a nice addition to the article.

Synthesis and reaction (no current changes)

I noticed that the reactions in this section are not complete/balanced. I would edit this discrepancy as it's an error in the information presented in the article. I would also clean up the reactions, as the formulas are hard to read without a chemistry background and maybe include skeletal molecular structures for the more complex structures.

Safety (moved paragraphs and reworded)

This section is more concise from the edits which is excellent. However only one source is used for the entire section, and given that it is a primary portion of the article I would recommend adding additional citations and information. This section flows better and is easy to read and understand.

The construction of the edited article is clear and concise. I found it overall well written with the edits and includes the most important areas of information. The tone of the article is neutral and does not over represent any viewpoints, nor does it include a large personal bias that is apparent. Well done.