Talk:Brush Polymers

=Peer Review 2=

Section 1
My biggest suggestion previously was to have a better introduction to polymer brushes. I was thinking about giving some early applications and the early advancements in the material. While you do say who the early pioneers were, I still do not understand why they were being researched in the first place. It would nice to immediately understand why these materials are important and why they are being researched. “Thin film” is also a word that you have in your Wikipedia page that is not linked to its page. As for your images, they are a much better size. At first it was too small and very difficult to see. Now it is a more appropriate size, and it is much easier to see your original picture. I also noticed that your references do not have repeats in them either, and you have a lot more than you originally did in your outline.

Section 2
The introduction section seems to be underemphasized compared to the other sections you have added. I see that you have already made a comment that you will add more information to it, which I think would be beneficial to your site. The classification section is a little short. You only have a short description of each different polymer brush. It might be helpful to give information as to why one would want to use one type over another, or give some properties of each that would let you know how to distinguish them. The synthesis section is a little longer than the others, but this is understandable since it also has more pictures, and it needs to go into a bit more depth.

I would double check to make sure that the scientists you mention do not have their own Wikipedia pages. If they do, then their names should be linked to their respective pages as well. Other than that, I think you have done a good job overall of trying to link all possible Wikipedia pages to your own.

The images of the different types of polymer brushes are difficult to see how they differ. It would help if they were possibly larger, or if the colors had more contrast to them. This way it would be easier to see just how they each differ from one another.

While a lot of your references are papers, you do have texts and a few reviews as references. It would be nice to have a more even distribution of references, but since I also know how difficult it is to get references that are not papers, I think you have done a good job of trying to find a variety of references. I think you have done a good job of trying to find multiple references from different avenues. I would double check your grammar. There are a few sentences in the beginning that sound awkward and I would recommend rephrasing. However, these grammar errors do not hinder me from understanding your page at all.

Overall, I think you have fulfilled your goals to revamp your page. You have given a much more complete background of the polymer brush and its applications. You have given a logical flow from introduction, to classifications, synthesis, to future applications, and your images give a much better idea of what a polymer brush is. You have also fulfilled the requirements of the Wikipedia assignment which is 3 sections, 3 figures, and a minimum of 8 references.

Section 3
Overall, I think this is a very good site. It is a great introduction into what a polymer is how it is made, and what it can be used for. The only real improvement I would say is making your introduction and classification sections more equal in length and information as your synthesis and application sections.

Cddwuich (talk)

=Peer Review 1=

Section 1
There no list of objectives for the site within the Wiki sandbox.

Section 2
The outline presented seems like a good format. It provides a detailed, but still brief overview into polymer brushes and looks like it will be comprehensible to the general public. A section about “Responsiveness of Polymer Brushes” looks like it would be beneficial as well, since the responsiveness is really why they are of such scientific interest. The classifications and synthesis sections are broken up into appropriate subsections. ATRP looks like it is another common method of synthesis, so you should include it as well. It would be good to include an example of a compound/monomer used for each classification and synthesis type when you get to that point. You might also want to include how the polymer brushes are characterized, either as a separate section or included somewhere else in the page. Concerning the applications, there are a lot of options available for discussion. I like the ones you chose, and maybe you could also mention possible wider applications that polymer brushes could be used for someday, just to add a ‘real-world’ perspective.

Images
The one image you have right now is very small. Be sure to size it up so people don’t have to click on the image to be able to view it clearly. There are two images on the following website that are pretty good that you could easily recreate and add to the website. http://www2.uakron.edu/cpspe/wjb/research/Polymer%20Brush%20Summary.html

Section 3
Its great to see that you have a book as well as papers. Two of the papers listed are the same one FYI. Be sure and check the Umich library, since there are a number of books there discussing applications that are available to be checked out, such as Polymer brushes for molecular transport By: Tu, Huilin. Published: 2005

This book, also available either online or through the library, looks like it might have a lot of great information on everything as well. Poly(ethylene oxide) based polymer brushes: Synthesis, properties and applications By: Zheng, Ying. Published: 2006

The following two papers are really good overviews of polymer brushes and might be a great asset.

Minko, S. Responsive Polymer Brushes. Polymer Reviews 2006, 46(4), 397-420.

Brittain, W. J.; Minko, S. A Structural Definition of Polymer Brushes. Journal of Polymer Science: Part A: Polymer Chemistry 2007, 45(16), 3505-3512.

Overall Comments
The outline looks great; it covers the basics and will give the general public a great overview of the topic. I think pictures will be a great asset to the site and will help to clear up what polymer brushes are and how they work, so be liberal with using them. Also be sure and cover the most popular applications and use a few more resources. One concern is that you should be careful not get into too much detail explaining ‘grafting to’ and ‘grafting from’, since it seems like they could use their own Wiki page alone. Beyond that, I look forward to seeing the final product completed and learning more about polymer brushes!

By Smamzrk

=Peer Review=

Section 1
You have not listed the objectives of your Wikipedia revision. You have already found many sites to link yours to as well, which is helpful. You may want to link to the “Thin film” Wikipedia page and the “Nanoparticle” Wikipedia page when you discuss thin film polymerization and nanoparticle functionalization.

Section 2
I think the organization overall is well thought out and make logical sense. The only section I think that could use more information is the background. For instance, it could be helpful to better understand how these materials came about, like when they were discovered, who were the major scientist who pioneered the original research, and why they were being produced. At the moment, while I have a new understanding of what a polymer brush is, I do not fully understand how it is really applied. I found background in the following reference:

B Zhao et. al. “Polymer Brushes: surface-immobilized macromolecules.” Progress in Poylmer Science. 25(5): 677-710. 2000. DOI: 10.1016/S0079-6700(00)00012-5

"Polymer brushes (or tethered polymers) attracted attention in 1950s when it was found that grafting polymer molecules to colloidal particles was a very effective way to prevent flocculation [4–9]"

"Alexander [29] was one of the first scientists who noted the distinctive properties of polymer brushes through theoretical analysis concerning the end-adsorption of terminally functionalized polymers on a flat surface. Further elaboration by de Gennes [30,31] and by Cantor [32] stressed the utility of tethered chains to the description of self-assembled block copolymers"

Images
The image shown is very small, and I cannot tell what the image actually is. Reading the caption it seems like it could be a helpful image, but it is difficult to discern what it’s supposed to be. Also more images of examples of polymer brushes could be very helpful as well.

Section 3
In your reference section, two of your references are exactly the same. I am not sure if you have two similar references or if you accidentally put it twice. You references seem to be diverse since you have two references from two very different journals, and you have a textbook. I would say just keep finding more references as you try to find more information on polymer brushes.

Overall Comments
Overall I think you are off to a great start. You are going to be adding a lot more information to the site of “polymer brush” to give people a better understanding of what they are and how they are made. I like how your organization of topics, and I think you have great applications. My big suggestion would be to add more background information, and make sure your pictures are an appropriate size in your final revision.

By Cddwumich

=Second Peer Review= Final Wikipedia Sandbox Review-Polymer Brushes

Section 1
My previous comments were addressed appropriately for the most part. While they did not end up including a section on the responsiveness of the polymer brushes, the article is fine without it since they explain how they work elsewhere. There are no examples given for any specific types of polymers that are used in brush polymers though. It might be beneficial to list some common commercially used monomers or state if they are frequently custom made, etc. They’ve improved the size of their pictures as well which I had requested.

Section 2
The site is a good introduction for general users and the page has a logical flow. The introduction is clear, although the last two sentences about the history of polymer brushes seem like an afterthought. You could separate this and expand it. The classifications section is well organized and concise. The synthesis section definitely seems to have gotten more attention than the other sections. I also found a website that references physisorption as a second common method of synthesis which you don’t mention or discuss. The website is give here:

http://www2.uakron.edu/cpspe/wjb/research/Polymer%20Brush%20Summary.html

It could be good to at least mention this method of synthesis. You discuss covering the future development potential of the brush polymers in your objectives, but the Applications section doesn’t seem to cover this. Expanding this section more to show the potential commercial applications of the brushes would help to cover this objective.

All terms are appropriately linked, but the images are not appropriately labeled. Be sure each one is labeled as ‘Figure #” numerically in order, with an appropriate description. The classification pictures are a little small as well, I suggest increasing their size slightly, otherwise I had to click on them to get a clear view. The images meet the guidelines given. The references are broad and inclusive, with a number of books as well as journals. There are a number of repeats in the references though and you should format them so they don’t show up twice in the Reference list below. It also looks like only one of your books listed has a DOI given. Almost all books have one, so be sure and check and add it if feasible.

There are a number of spelling and grammatical errors that need to be addressed, for example in the Classification section you have ‘bush” instead of brush. Definitely take some time to read over everything. The fonts for your subunits under Applications are larger than the Application heading itself as well. It would look better if those were switch around. The website satisfies all of the requirements; there are enough paragraphs, pictures and references added.

Section 3
The site gives a good general introduction to polymer brushes. The classification section is easy to follow and organized. The synthesis section is clear and the pictures are an asset to the page. The history section of the Introduction and the Application section could be expanded as well. The spelling and grammar should also be checked and the references combined appropriately. Overall the site will be a good addition to Wikipedia and a great topic choice considering the heightened interest in polymer brushes.

Smamzrk