User:Pelicanchem/Partition equilibrium/Zhammy Peer Review

General info
Pelicanchem
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)

Lead

- the lead has been updated, with the additonal information of what affects the time until a partition equilibrium emerges. This is a good improvement and adds more context to the partition equilibrium. I think the additional information you added to the lead helps the overall understanding of the contents in the article. The first sentence of the lead is a little bit difficult to understand, just due to the order of the wording. I suggest rewording this part:"wherein one or more solutes are in equilibrium between two immiscible solvents" to maybe something along the lines of, " where one or more solutes are in equilibrium between two immiscible solvents". I think the "wherein" is a bit of a confusing word for the first sentence. In the sentence "The most common chemical equilibrium systems involve reactants and products in the same phase - either all gases or all solutions.", I think you should get rid of the dash (-) and use a comma or restructure the sentence instead. The dash is a little grammatically informal.

Content

- I think the strongest part of the article is the example and the photo added. I think this makes a very good visual representation of the phenomena and is great for an outreach project like this.

- the weakest part of the article is the Partition Coefficient section. I know this is not the main idea of the article and it is ok that it is a short section, but I think you should add a sentence or two about how the value of this coefficient affects the partitioning or add some context behind the meaning of this value in regards to the partition equilibrium.

Tone and balance

- there does not seem to be any bias in the article, all claims are neutral. I think the addition of the photo in the Example section balances out the article and makes it easier to visualize and understand. In the Partition Coefficient section, I think you can rephrase "This particular kind of equilibrium constant..." to just : "This kind of equilibrium constant..." More direct sentence structure, and follows Brogan rules which may be important for published literature meant for a wide range of audiences. I think this is an overall good change for the tone of the article.

Photos

I really like the photo and it is easy to understand. It makes the article more interesting and visually appealing. Diagrams like these can say more than words, especially for a wide range of audiences where many can grasp difficult concepts using pictures. The caption of the image is also straight forward, I'd suggest adding the elemental name of ammonia as seen in the image (NH3) next to the ammonia in the caption so it is very obvious that is what you are referring to in the image.

Sources

-I think it is great you looked into the sources of the original article and found that they weren't great, and found new ones. Some of the links you added into your draft do not bring me directly to the article though so maybe look into that problem for references 1 and 3.

Organization

- some of my suggestions for writing style are in the Lead section and Tone section, but the overall flow of the article is good and I think your overall writing style is professional and easy to follow. I think all your sections are relevant in the article and the order makes sense.

Overall impressions

- you made great additions to the article! my favourite addition was the image, it adds colour and visual aid to the difficult concepts. This is a very niche topic and you did a good job of adding information that is accessible to a wide range of audiences because you made the information generally easy to follow with not much jargon, or you added links to more difficult concepts. Some weaknesses in the article are minor grammatical errors that can easily be fixed that I identified earlier. These changes will help the overall flow and clarity of the article.

Response to Peer Review
Many thanks for the insightful comments. I hope you'll find I've addressed any concerns.

I've made some of your suggested grammatical changes, but some I've left. I think 'wherein makes more sense than 'where' for example. The dash is proper grammar and I disagree that its informal, so it also remains.

I removed 'particular' as suggested in the coefficient section.

Your kind words on the photo and sources are appreciated.

I think with that I've addressed all your points. Thanks again.

-Pelicanchem