User:Tritium123/Impurity/Firebirdrebirth Peer Review

Lead · Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead section was modified, with some phrases added in the second lead paragraph. This modified second paragraph describes the content in the new section that you wrote.

·Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Lead section has an introductory sentence that describes the article’s topic.

·Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is no description of the section “Impurities and Nucleation”. It is not discussed at all in the lead section.

·Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead includes information that is not present in the rest of the article. The lead section describes what a “pure chemical” is. This may be needed to help describe what an impurity is.

Content · Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the added content is relevant to the topic. The section “Wanted Impurities” directly relates to the overall topic of Chemical Impurity.

· Is the content added up-to-date? The added content is up to date. Sources used for content include a couple research articles from 2020.

·Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All sections discussed in the article are relevant to the topic.

·Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No. No.

Tone and Balance ·Is the content added neutral? The added content is fairly neutral. The section you added is called “Wanted Impurities” and described how impurities in gems are wanted to give different colors, which is not 100% neutral. This section is useful, because it describes scenarios where the impurities influence a property of the material (eg. Color or conductance) in a non-negative manner. The words “wanted” or “unwanted” could potentially be substituted with more neutral words, but I can’t think of more neutral alternatives that describe “pros and cons” of impurities.

·Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims are heavily biased towards a particular position.

·Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? N/A

·Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References ·Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Definition is introduction has a secondary source (Merriam-Webster) that is reliable. The information on color of gemstones has a secondary source, an article “International Gem Society”, that appears reliable. Could consider adding a citation for “slight impurities that act as chromophores and give the stone its color”. Should cite “The presence of trace elements such as chromium, vanadium, iron may give rise to a green coloration” because following sentence says “iron creates a blue gem”. Added information on semiconductors site an online textbook from “Halbleiter.org”, which may not be a reliable secondary source as there is no publisher or references within the textbook.

·Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, content reflects cited sources. Definition given in lead section matches source. Also, information in “Wanted Impurities” section that is cited matches sources, for both gem stones and semiconductors.

·Are the sources current? Sources are current (primary research articles within 5 years, recently written article from International Gem Society).

·Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) A chemistry textbook from a well-known publisher could be a better alternative to “Halbleiter.org”.

·Check a few links. Do they work? The links to references work and pages are accessible.

Organization

·Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The added content is easy to read. Could modify “The dopants, the elements added to the original crystal structure, contain a different number of electrons” by adding “than atoms in the original crystal”.

·Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a couple minor grammatical errors in the “Wanted impurities section”. Missing an “and” after vanadium in “ such as chromium, vanadium, iron”. “Manganese will give pink and iron creates a blue gem.” Could become “Manganese will give a pink color…”. In “The addition of the dopants don't affect other properties of the semiconductor besides its conductivity.” Don’t should be “doesn’t”.

·Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is well organized for the most part. I feel the part of the lead describing pure species could become it’s own section or be reorganized within the introduction, as it doesn’t seem to fit where it is currently placed.

Images and Media No images or media present in article. Could potentially add images.

Overall impressions ·Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added has improved the quality of the article. The title is now more specific that the previously title of “Impurity”, citations were added to some claims, and the new section adds information that is very relevant to the topic.

·What are the strengths of the content added? The new section “Wanted Impurities” was a good addition. It helps round out the information on impurities, showing how some impurities can have positive effects, instead of only negative effects.

·How can the content added be improved? Grammatical errors in “Wanted Impurities” should be fixed (see above). Also, source (5) could be switched with a chemistry textbook from a well-known publisher. The lead section could also be reorganized (I feel that the 5 last sentences of paragraph 1 could be relocated or a bridging sentence needs to be added before jumping into what makes a substance pure). Firebirdrebirth (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feed back

Lead: I included an brief destruction of the nucleation section

Tone: I considered your feedback but did not end up changing the words wanted or unwanted.

Sources: I substituted those sources for textbooks

Organization: I fixed the grammar mistakes

Images: I added images

Thank your again for your input.