User:Diarcane/Nanochemistry/Stepagco Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Xiaoxu Qing, Yungad

Link to draft you're reviewing:


 * User:Xiaoxu Qing/Nanochemistry


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Nanochemistry

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello! Here is my peer review for your work:

Lead Section
When reading the original lead section of the article, it is obvious that there was too much information. It included information that would have been better included in the main body of the article instead. Your revision improves this by significantly cutting down all the extraneous information and making it more concise. For the most part, major sections of the article have been briefly introduced; however, there is no mention of nanolithography despite this being a large section in your article. A couple sentences introducing this section can be added in the second paragraph of your lead section, perhaps before you list down all the applications.

Content
I think it was a great idea to remove the nanotopography section and assimilate it into the nanolithography section. It looked out-of-place in the original article, so having it be a part of the larger nanolithography section is better. However, it would be great if you could link a Wikipedia article to the mentions of nanotopography so that people can reference that article if they want more information.

Your largest edits came from the applications section, wherein you included mentions of techniques that were referenced in the lead section. I think this is good because it gives more context and information for the reader. In particular, you added the two sections for ion oxide nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes, but I think these would be better added as part of a larger section (i.e. imaging and drug delivery respectively) rather than as their own sub-headings. These two applications are slightly too "niche" to be defined as broad categorizations, so it would be good to define them under a better umbrella term.

Tone and Balance
Your tone is neutral and I do not detect any bias in your work. It all appears to be very straightforward and fact-based.

Sources and References
Your sources all come from reliable secondary sources and the content accurately reflects them. They come from peer-reviewed articles, which establishes notability and reliability. It looks like your links work as well, though some of them do appear to be have incomplete dates (only YYYY-MM).

Organization
For the most part, the content is concise and easy to read. However, there are instances of inconsistent capitalization:


 * "Nanochemistry focuses on the Solid-state chemistry that emphasizes the synthesis of building blocks which are dependent on size, surface, shape, and defect properties, rather than the actual production of matter under nano scale Chemistry mainly deals with..." --> Bolded words should be uncapitalized. Additionally, nanoscale is one word.
 * "to be detected by Magnetic resonance imaging (MDR). However, the concentration of ion oxide nanoparticles needs..." --> Magnetic should not be capitalized in this case

There are also instances of grammatical error:


 * "Specially, CNTs can be transformed into sophisticated biomolecule and allow its detection through changes in the CNT fluorescence spectra." --> This could be reworded to "CNTs can be transformed into sophisticated biomolecules which allows their detection through changes in the CNT fluorescence spectra."

Please note that these examples are not a definitive list and you will need to go through your article in more detail to find more errors.

Also, I mentioned in the content that some sections could be rearranged, such as the ion oxide nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes sub-headings. These could be placed under "Imaging" and "Drug Delivery" to reflect the major points of those topics. (Note: Imaging would then become a new section, but I think a brief introductory sentence to explain how nanochemistry has contributed to this area would suffice. Not including an introduction wouldn't be bad either, since your section on ion oxide nanoparticles implicitly explains that.)

Additionally, you added the Cosmetics section, though there is a mentions of sunscreen in the Medicine section. I believe sunscreen would make more sense in the cosmetics section and there is no need for repetition in both of them.

Overall Impressions
I think most of the additions that you've made are great! I especially liked how much easier it is to read the lead section after you've done a lot of major revisions. The sections you have added definitely makes the article more complete by giving the reader more context for references made in the lead section by using good secondary sources. I think your main goal now should be to organize your added sections better and do a little proofreading throughout the article.