User:Artisticalligator/Stokes shift/UpcomingDuckling Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Artisticalligator


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Artisticalligator/Stokes shift
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Stokes shift:
 * Stokes shift:

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead does not reflect the new content, but this makes sense because the new content is examples of applications. Still, it might be worth mentioning Raman spectroscopy
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes..? But the lead also serves as an explanation of Stokes shift, so I don't think this is a problem
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is overly detailed, but this could be fixed by adding a divider establishing when the lead ends and content begins.
 * I would find a citation for the citation needed part, or take it out

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes! It's some useful examples of applications
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It might be useful to say that yttrium oxysulfide is a phosphor
 * The yttrium oxysulfide section is a little thin. I support giving it its own section within applications, but maybe give some examples of where it is used (what industries is it common in?)
 * It's a little unclear how Stokes shift provides information on vibrational modes, where is the connection between Stokes shift and vibrational modes?
 * How do researchers gain understanding of physical and chemical properties? Please add a source
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Not relevant

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, it's not! Please add your sources!


 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The caption of the added image is very long. It might be worthwhile to create a new "Explanation of Stokes shift" section, add information from the Lead and from this caption to there, and change the caption to something more concise, like "Virtual states in Jablonski diagram of Stokes shift"
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I don't know. It looks homemade and I don't know the copyright regulations
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I don't know if this is possible to do, but if the images are aligned with the section they refer to, that would help clarify the page

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, absolutely, but there is still more information needed to complete the contributions
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Talking about Raman spectroscopy makes the article scientifically relevant, and adding the example of yttrium oxysulfide establishes that Stokes shifts are industrially relevant
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Sourcing and some more explanation of statements that are already there. I hope my comments above make sense

Response:

Dear UpcomingDuckling,

I appreciate your kind words and thoughtfulness in your peer review of my article.

I see that your main concerns were with adding new citations and changing the captions of my image. I would like to say that I have done both these things. I have added two new sources (5) and (8) in my article that back up some of the claims mentioned. I have also shortened the caption of the image I drew which represented the stokes and anti-stokes shifts.

In addition to this I made some improvements in the "Yttrium Oxysulfide" section like you mentioned and added more applications of stokes and anti-stokes scattering.

I hope these improvements satisfy your suggestions and if you have anymore advice please do not hesitate to tell me.

Once again thank you for your review.

Best regards,

Artisticalligator.