User:Cemes4/Voltammetry/Cayeung Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cemes4, Jrumscheidt, Shenassak


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cemes4/Voltammetry
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Voltammetry

Review by Cayeung
I like the ideas used to improve this article. Great thinking to give more descriptions for types of voltammetry and add more applications. The references section contains working links, verifying the legitimacy of your sources. However, I do think there are some elements that can be improved upon. Here are my suggestions:


 * I agree with the point to add more figures and expand on captions of existing ones. I would like to reinforce that idea, given that the draft does not contain any figures. Consider adding a picture of the actual voltammetry setup, so readers will know what to expect if they were to do voltammetry in the lab.
 * There seems to be a citation error or or something between the 3rd and 4th references. Consider removing it or finding out what caused this error.
 * The list format of the types of voltammetry is a bit difficult to read due to the misalignment of title and descriptor. Consider replacing the list with a two columned table, one with the type of voltammetry and the other with a brief descriptor of it. That would greatly enhance readability.
 * Some types of voltammetry, such as cathodic stripping voltammetry and polarography, contain descriptors that aren't cited. This information is therefore not verifiable and negatively impacts the article. Make sure to check over your work to ensure all information is well-cited.
 * The theory section seems to be very large, consisting of several paragraphs. It may be helpful to split them into subsections to outline the information clearly. For example, the original article isolated information regarding voltammograms in its own section. I suggest keeping it that way in the draft.
 * As well, some equations are mentioned, but they are not shown. Consider adding figures for each equation, with captions outlining what each variable means.

Overall, I like the direction this draft is heading! Great work, the article has already been improved significantly. I look forward to seeing what the end result looks like!