User talk:5402013SD/sandbox

Introduction: The introduction section is very strong. Its's short and succinct. Also the use of layman's terms is much appreciated. Any general audience would be able to understand. I did notice there were no citations in the introduction, which one usually sees. I do think one or two references would be nice, in case the reader just wants to glance at the introduction and have a reference readily available, versus having to go the history to find the first one. There was also good linking of terms in this section.

History: Sentence: One of the first...were with (sounds better if was the ...suture)

This section does not flow well when reading. It seems like a lot of random facts put into paragraph form. Perhaps this section would be done best with bullet points, or perhaps a visual of a timeline ranging from 100 AD to 2013, with the facts you included in your original paragraph.

Structure and Properties: Sentence: Although there are... (this sentence seemed a little off, perhaps while there are innumerable)

"impracticable to break". Different word, impractical is not appropriate when referring to the bond strength, maybe difficult to break).

Not sure how the degradation at the end of the polymer relates to high SA being common (just link this idea better).

The word tend is used a lot throughout the text. Try to switch it up. (often, etc.)

Figures are nice in this section, especially the descriptions.

Synthesis: Need more linking!

Sentence: ROP of cyclic... with (should be which)

Sentence: The synthesis of poly... is can (choose one)

Breakdown: Linking of oxygen needs to be fixed.

Reaction scheme is nice and easy to understand.

Uses: Linking (especially under medicinal uses) could help break up the text. The amount of text is here is intimidating and needs to be broken up. Perhaps a picture of one of the medicinal polymers.

Overall I think this is a good looking page. You clearly added a lot from the original site. Because so much was added, it seemed quite dense and needs to be broken up. One main suggestion I have is rereading the whole page out loud. That will help with deciding flow and also how to rephrase some awkward sentences. With these little changes, this will be a great page.

Kschemumich13 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I really think that you did a great job with this page. There is a large emphasis on application throughout the page, which has its strengths given the audience. I do think that there are a few sentence structure issues and some material that would be nice to add. You are the expert in this stuff, so please take my advice with a grain of salt. I'm just a guy who thinks he is a chemist, therefore my english and chemical intuition has its flaws.

Introduction
I like the points that you address, as far as versatility and challenges in design. One thing I think needs a little work is the sentence structure. I noticed that the opening sentence is hard to read. There is a lot of good stuff in it, but I think that it could be broken up a little bit. I think the first sentence can be broken up into three different sentences addressing the purpose, challenges in application and decomposition. As it reads it is just a little hard to follow. Also the term breakdown is used several times, and I was wondering if the term decomposition could be used interchangeably. Overall I think that the intro hits all the areas that it should, and the content is good. I do think that it need a little restructuring though.

History
I really found the history of these polymers to be interesting. I think your decision to make history a section was a good choice given the natural quality of a lot of these polymers. One thing that I did not like about the history section in the opening two sentences. I understand what you are trying to say, but I think there may be better ways to say that biodegradable polymers have a been around for a while. If you remove the two sentences I think it would be more fluid. I really like how you covered a large timespan. It is easy to get wrapped up in what is cutting edge, but I think you did a really good job covering as much time as possible and pointing out many things. Nice!

Structure and properties
This section was really nice. I really like the scheme that you have in the beginning. One nit picky thing I want to point out, is that think that there is a repeat in the first sentence of "ester and ester bonds". Also, in the first sentence you mention that some of polymers, such as proteins, contain amide bonds. I think a nice addition to the scheme, is next to biopolyesters would be biopolyamides and a following box labelled peptides. I noticed that you mention it in the next section and it may be a good place to show it in your scheme. I really like the properties section of your article, you address a lot of challenges with respect to degradation. Another nit picky thing, I think the term impractical in the third sentence could be changed to something more science like.

Synthesis
This is section is great. I printed the article off to read it and as I was reading I thought "They should really include a scheme for polyurethanes." and wah la! On the next page at the top there is a scheme for polyurethanes, so what I am trying to say is, good placement.

Mechanism of Breakdown
Another great section. One thing I think you both need to decide on is whether you are going to use the term breakdown, degradation, or decomposition. I see them all throughout, I am not sure which one is more right, but I think that you should agree on one and use it throughout. In the second paragraph there seems to be an error in your wiki language. There is the word oxygen that looks like this: [[oxygen[[. In the paragraph following your scheme, there is a sentence explaining the challenges for enzymes to evolve to accommodate the synthetic polymers. I there really like it and I think it is full of information. Although, I think that this sentence is crucial, I also think that it could be worded better. In this same paragraph there is a sentence that starts with:"Typically, after physical processes......" There seems to be some extra words and the sentence does not quite make sense.

Applications
Application section is really nice. I think that medicinal application for these are really interesting and I also think that most people will find this intriguing. I think your section is weighted toward medicinal applications, and I think that is awesome. Now the stuff I thought that could be changed: I think that the first sentence of the second paragraph could be removed completely and the paragraph would be fine. In the third paragraph there is a sentence where you use the term 'in vitro' twice. I think the second usage could be removed. Also, I got a little confused in the example sentence about 'rat smooth muscle tissue'. I really like the term "holy grail", not sure if this was intended to be a monty python reference, but it should of been. Although, I like the term holy grail, I think from a professional stance there may be other terms you could use.

PLA- I think this stuff is really sweet! A decomposition scheme, if reported, would be really interesting.

Is that your trash bag!?? Just kidding nice figure, relatable for those who use trash bags.

Other uses
I think the last sentence could be removed completely, and just add agriculture to your list is the previous sentence.

Notable examples
Biggest issue with this section is the use of the really bold statement: "however, there is no way to live without these plastics." I think this should be removed, although true for 99% of the population, I think this may be a bit of an assumption. Coates stuff is awesome. I am glad that you referenced him, I would be more glad if there was a figure with an example of one of the metal complexes. Lets all remember why were here, because inorganic chemistry is king.


 * There are a ton of papers by Coates about these types of polymers, the earliest I could find is: J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 11018-11019. There are some Zn catalysts in this paper that incorporate CO2 into a polyester/polycarbamate. If you included just the a figure of the metal complex that would be cool, but thats your choice. I am not sure if it is technically biodegradable, but I am sure there is a paper that explains which ones are. I would find one of his earliest works to maintain the encyclopedia feel.

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
Nice work with expanding the article. A couple of suggestions here. ChemLibrarian (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Content-wise, a section to describe the advantage of biodegradable polymers comparing to non-biodegradable ones may be useful for general public to understand the importance of developing biodegradable polymers.
 * The figure "Biodegradable polymers organization based on structure and occurrence" is currently in .jpg format. .png or .svg format is preferred. You may try to save it as .png and upload. That should give better appearance online.
 * In the Synthesis section, there is a link to a Youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUN3e79dsvI. I see it links to a video about dogs... If it's accidentally there, please delete it.
 * Reference 24 has a wrong DOI, please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemLibrarian (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer review response
Thank you for the reviews! They were very helpful in editing the article. We proofread the article and corrected the awkward phrasing and sentence structure issues. Hopefully the flow is better now. We corrected some of the other Wikipedia editing issues such as broken links and errors in the references. We fixed the broken DOI in one of the references and combined the repeated references into one. The file formats were also changed as requested. The suggestion to break up the big block of text in the Applications section was a very good one. We added some more linking and a figure. We decided to use an image of biodegradable sutures since the structures of the biodegradable polymers themselves can easily be found on their respective Wikipedia pages (and the links are provided in the text). The Coates work did not get a picture of the catalyst because the catalysts he received the award for are patented and we felt that we shouldn't add other catalyst structures in. Honestly, we could have done an entire page on him so we felt we would leave the details for whoever does decide to make one! We also added many more links to other Wikipedia pages in order to make it easier for readers to access additional information on related topics.

Thank you again for your thorough and insightful advice. It really helped to improve the page! RLM0518 (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 5402013SD (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)