User:Dvnyn/Thin-layer chromatography/Lq1i 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?

Thin-layer chromatography

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dvnyn/Thin-layer_chromatography?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Thin-layer chromatography

Evaluate the drafted changes

I'm not sure if this is an error on my behalf, but when I go into your sandbox, your first image covers your page (image on the right). Please double check

Lead

It's great that you shortened the lead section and removed unnecessary information. Your introductory sentence summarizes the topic well, and the lead is concise and well-focused. Some minor suggestions: On your second paragraph first sentence, I recommend including "(known as the stationary phase)" into your sentence without brackets -- just with a comma.

The part where you mentioned "the plate is viewed under UV light or is stained", I agree with the stain part, but for UV light, I think you should be more specific on the word, "colourless" -- in UV-light range maybe?

Content

I liked how you removed some TLC images that had the same messages. I also agree with your new formats.

However, I suggest categorizing the Plate Preparation, Development Chamber Preparation, Development and Visualization as a sub-heading instead of putting them in point-forms. As the contents for each section is not small, putting in point-forms may not be the best choice. I also think Separation process and principle should be another section. I also suggest changing the title "Technique" to "Procedure".

Also for the very first sentence of your separation process and principle section, I don't think "competing for binding sites" is not necessarily the basis of separation of compounds. I checked your reference, and your reference states that "affinity" is the basis of separation. I think affinity is a better word for this (or the original sentence was fine as well).

I also don't think it was necessary to remove resulting word for "move higher up the plate (~~resulting~~ in higher Rf)". In fact, I think it is better with the resulting included. Same for the smaller Rf.

Check your first sentence of your last paragraph under the Separations principle section. I believe this is a run-on sentence. Also, is "system" necessary after "solvent"?

For analysis section, your intro sentence stated that you will be listing out "several methods". But the following points were more characteristics of some compounds (not method). You should either change the intro sentence or change up the list.

I'm not sure if you mistakenly kept the "Plate preparation" section from the original, but this should be removed if you included this information under Technique section.

For applications-reaction monitoring and characterization section, I do not entirely agree with "Once all starting material is gone, the reaction is complete". I think in some reactions, it is not possible to have all reagents to be consumed (especially the ones that aren't limiting reagent). Maybe double check on that statement.

Tone and Balance

Great balance and the article is neutral throughout.

Sources

The sources are reliable and are neutral sources.

Organization

Overall organization is much improved, but small suggestions for organization is listed under content section above.

Images and Media

Other than the very first image that is covering most part of the page, all images and media sources are good!