User:Tiff592/Nanoelectrochemistry/Tsang Karl Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Assigned to: Ymukohya, Chhan02, Tiff592


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tiff592/Nanoelectrochemistry?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

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 was updated to reflect the new content

When you are done with your additions remember to reference them in the introductory paragraph. Mention briefly the applications of the nanoelectrochemistry that you have added, (IE. the battery applications and CO2 reduction)

Lead is concise so far but is missing a reference to mention the applications, which is what the draft will add

 Content 

Content added is relevant to topic

Content added is updated, sources are current and updated

Missing a more detailed explanation of the three techniques mentioned for conducting nanoelectrochemical measurements. Either explain these in brief in a paragraph or so each, or hyperlink to the relevant wikipedia article that explains these concepts in detail.

 Sources and References 

Consistent citation formatting throughout, good

Sources are all from credible, primary literature (Scientific journals) good

Sources are current, and information presented in the draft matches with information presented in the referenced sources.

Sources are from diverse range of journals and authors.

Source links work.

 Organization 

Remember in the final article you cannot have the main text all bolded like in the draft. I understand this is to differentiate what is newly added from what is already there, but don't forget to change it back to plain text after you are done.

Content is well organized, good use of subheadings to divide up what was added by topic and concept.

Consider your audience. The audience for wikipedia is the general public, so terms like Scanning Electrochemical probe Microscopy, Helmholtz planes, and solid solid interfaces should be explained, or linked to the relevant wikipedia article for explanation.

Grammar issues. Remember to read through your article every now and then, you can catch grammar mistakes that you miss in previous read-throughs. Common grammatical errors noticed include singular/plural forms, using the correct adjective or verb, and using the correct conjunction.

Remembering your audience: Try not to use colloquial language. Although wikipedia articles are in no way formal, try to stick to standard English. IE. avoid using terms like 'pros and cons'.

Be careful what verbs you use. Here: ' Nanoparticle is currently the hottest technology' The meaning of this is completely different than what you are trying to go for. Try using words like 'most favored', 'most popular', 'a novel', or even 'a trending'. As it is right now this makes no sense. You are saying a technology, a concept, is very hot, which is a property of matter. This can confuse the general public especially those who are not familiar with English colloquialisms. Avoid using such terms. Also, Nanoparticles should be plural, you are talking about nanoparticles as a whole, not one singular nanoparticle.

Another example: ' There are at least three mature techniques' Instead of 'mature', better words to use would include 'developed', 'well-known', etc. 'Mature' here does not make too much sense.

Check for spelling errors: ' meanwhile remains releventaly stable' Relevantly? Make sure to look throughout your additions for other spelling mistakes.

 Figures 

The figure added in the draft is effective for explaining the concept visually

The caption is not formatted properly. The caption should be in the caption box underneath the figure, but currently it is in the main body of text.

Figure is pixelated and is not clear. Try to get the original figure if possible or adapt it into your own figure so that the figure will be clear and not pixelated.

 Overall: 

Overall it is a good start, good inclusion of a placeholder figure.

The basic structure of what will be added is there, the main points just need to be more thoroughly explained and elaborated upon