User:MaxD02/Laboratory glassware/Wyattsnyder Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(MaxD02)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MaxD02/Laboratory glassware - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Laboratory glassware - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
{Content}:___All of the edits in bold contribute relevant information that is unbiased I think that choosing the "History" section of the article since it looked like it needed the most work before. I might suggest to mention where the different plant ashes come from, its something minor however it wouldn't draw away from the main point and maybe give some geographical reference. All of the material is up-to-date and/or still relevant as well as being reliable sources and there are a fair amount of citations in your draft. Discussing the historical progression of the glassmaking industry is something that is not discussed often and narrowing down to scientific glassmaking is an excellent way to tie into modern society and modern glassmaking processes.

{Tone & Balance}____The information provided in your draft portrays a very neutral standpoint in bias and tone, by using words like "most", and justifying the cause and effect relationship during the World War era.

{Sources & References}____Some recommendations for citing sources and the overall format, a lot of your sources follow a chronological order and it might be worth having two sources bounce information off each other in order to back up and justify each source. A good example of where you did this was between the 5th and 6th citations regarding the war effects on the glass industry. Looking through your sources they are all represented pretty fairly and the citations summarize a good bit of knowledge from the sources in your own words. Something else that was well done was your sources are a good mix of books and articles that are all recent and still scientifically and historically relevant. A recommendation for another source could be an academic textbook on ceramic engineering and/or glassmaking.

{Organization}___ I think the organization of your draft is exceptional, the use of chronological ordering is fitting with the "History" section and as the order progresses you focus more into the scientific glass industry. For the most part your draft is well written I just had one suggestion for this instance... " Though after the war, many laboratories turned back to imports, research into better glassware flourished. Glassware became more immune to thermal shock while maintaining chemical inertness.", I would recommend combining these two sentences into one, as the first sentence has some interesting comma structure.

{Impressions}____So far your article edits are incredibly informative and for the most part well written, the rest of your draft looks fine I would just try to mix up the source distribution throughout the draft. You have enough sources in total I would consider a few secondary supporting sources, and you have a topic that pertains to the course material and is underrepresented in online literature. I would also consider adding some schematics of the glassmaking process and relate that to how it has changed through the years for additional edits in the article

---Wyatt Snyder