User:Ntmy777/Solid-state chemistry/AnonymousIpad Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ntmy777


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ntmy777/Solid-state chemistry


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Solid-state chemistry - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

First of all, the lead section gives out the definition of solid-state chemistry. It also describes the relevant topics, synthesis focus, and characterization, which covers the overall article. All content stated in the lead section is presented in the article. In overall. your lead section represents what the reader should expect to see within the article.

Majority of your edit focus on improving the synthesis section, which is great since that is the most important concept in this article. I am impressed by your writing style in each type of synthesis. While maintaining the main idea, you simplified the sentence to the level that non-academic people would be able to follow easily. You also increased the topic amounts from the previous version and improved the quality and conciseness of the former article. All of your claims have valid supporting references.

Regarding the characterization section, you did well in removing the unnecessary part and jargon. The overall readability of this section improves a lot due to your correction, as there were a few typos in the original article.

Your tone usage is neutral, and the citations come from a broad and diverse author. In this sense, the article only presents relevant information to the topic without any misleading parts.

In my opinion, you can improve your article by firstly, bringing back the history section. As I see in many Wikipedia articles on science subjects. Most of them contain a history section for the non-science reader to learn more about the background of that topic. Moreover, the current article seems to present ideas separately, maybe you can write a paragraph explaining why this section is needed in this article to improve the flow of reading.