Talk:Glass battery

Regarding statements made in the publication vs media coverage
Previous versions of this article have conflated what is actually reported in the Energy and Environmental Science paper with what has been reported in the wider media coverage, which is misleading. Performance characteristics such as energy density compared to lithium-ion batteries and operating temperature are extrapolations only, and others such as cycle life (1,200 cycles is still stated) are have only been stated by the authors in interviews and not in the peer-reviewed articles, and therefore cannot be verified.

I previously edited this article to clarify that these performance characteristics, and their "advantages" compared to Li-ion batteries were "claims" - strictly in the scientific sense - however this was reverted because of concerns of loaded language. This is fair enough, so I have instead modified the article further to include a new section on the construction and chemistry of the battery based on what is stated in the scientific article alone, and re-edited the following section (which I suggest is "comparison with lithium-ion batteries" instead of "advantages" - no real prototypes of this battery exist yet and such advantages are hypothetical) with the removal of the erroneous statement that these things are stated in the paper.

I do urge future editors of this article to pay attention to what is stated in the peer-reviewed literature and what is unverifiable statements made by the authors in the media. So far, the journalists covering this development have failed to make this distinction. 130.238.180.233 (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Very good work. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)