User:Luckytooth/Octahedral molecular geometry/Argoncarbon 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?

Luckytooth

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luckytooth/Octahedral_molecular_geometry?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Octahedral molecular geometry

Evaluate the drafted changes

I see that you have made changes to make the lead easier to read and to add more content to the isomerism section. However, the revisions are not non-trivial in my opinion. The changes to the lead arguable makes it harder to understand / flow less smoothly. The changes to the isomerism section does not add much more content. To improve the article, I suggest focusing on improving the references in the article as I can see many sections that lack any citation at all.

Lead:

The sentence "The shape of an octahedral molecule is an octahedron, hence the prefix octa" does not make sense since the prefix octa refers to the number 8, and your explanation does not involve the number 8 at all.

The perfect octahedral paragraph should proceed the "the term octahedral is used somehwat loosely" portion of the lead as you should talk about the original definition meaning before talking about the expanded definition.

The paragraph about Werner needs a citation.

To improve this section, I suggest condensing it into a more succinct paragraph and cut out any non-essential information.

Body:

In the isomerism section, a lot of subsections do not contain references at all. Reference should be added even if its the same one for a lot of them so readers can immediately know where to look.

The diastereogmer comment is does not exclusively apply to cis and trans isomers, so should maybe be moved to the beginning of the section. Also, I don't think the addition is very relevant.

For the cis and trans section, the term "mutually adjacent" is hard to understand, perhaps saying they are 90° to each other is better. Also the degree symbol (°) should be used, not a superscript o.