User talk:CarboJoule/sandbox

Peer Review 1
Mr.Holmium (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Mr.Holmium

Content
The introduction is very concise and to-the-point. Its simplicity seems appropriate for the general public. It's also nice that a statement regarding the van't Hoff equation's utility is included. The length of each section is appropriate and the content is explained well and is not duplicative of the content already on Wikipedia. Compared to the current site, the content about the equation’s derivation is better organized in this edited version. I’d suggest label which equation is the van’t Hoff equation (e.g. the differentiated equation or the one highlighted in green?) because it would be very helpful to reference back to it later in the sections dealing with the van’t Hoff plot. Each important concepts of the page is linked to their respective Wikipedia page for further reference. Though, the term “isotherm” can be linked to the Wikipedia page “Isothermal process” because the content of “Van’t Hoff isotherm” doesn’t explain/relate to the term clearly. Also, it would be helpful to have a sentence relating the similarity of the van’t Hoff isotherm equation with the one under standard condition. For example, relating RT ln Q with RT ln Keq. The subsection “Van’t Hoff Plot” has a very good coverage. It’s very precise and detailed enough for an encyclopedia page. I’d suggest referencing which equation you’re analyzing (as mentioned above) because the green highlighted equation in the derivation is not the one used for the plot. The examples used for analyzing the endothermic and exothermic reactions seem appropriate and show the utility of the van’t Hoff plot. One thing missing here is the relevance of entropy. Do people care about entropy? If not, is it because the change is insignificant?

Figures
The figures seem like they’re made by the authors editing the page, thus they’re original. They’re simple and descriptive, thus they’re of good quality and support the text appropriately. The only thing I would change in the figure is use subscript for “eq” in “ln Keq.”

Overall presentation
Overall, the page is very well done and expanded compared to the current site. The amount of information and figure is enough and explained in good details. There are only a few things that can be improved:


 * Better clarification in the Van’t Hoff Plot section: reference to equation, a statement about entropy.
 * When analyzing the temperature dependence, I’d suggest write a note that as T increases, 1/T decreases, therefore higher T’s lie at the left of the plot. This is very obvious but sometimes people forget that the plot is a function of 1/T.
 * I’d suggest make a new section (section 3 on “Applications” perhaps) for the van’t Hoff analysis and mechanism study because these two are about applications of the van’t Hoff plot. The “temperature dependence of the van’t Hoff equation” seems appropriate under the “Van’t Hoff Plot” section.

Peer Review 2
Educatefreechemistry (talk)

Content
The introduction is easy to understand and the addition of the application of van’t Hoff equation is very helpful for all users in general. Users are always more likely to look for the application of the topic at the beginning of the page. Length for all the sections except for van’t Hoff analysis is very justifiable. It would be a good idea to talk about biological application in brief. There is a lot of application of van’t Hoff factor in biology or biochemistry. Adding paragraph or an example from that section might make this page more interesting and informative. All the equations added by the user seem to be original and good quality. It might be a good idea to use Keq instead of just K as equilibrium constant. There are enough equations in the page to explain the topic and derive the formula clearly and step by step. That will make it easier for non-chemistry user to understand the topic as well. Most of the important concepts and terms are linked to the appropriate wikipedia page.

Figures
The figures are well made and explain the concept in the page clearly. They are easy to read and high quality. Being consistent with the spaces in the formula of slope and interception might make it better. I think using a picture in the middle of the page (or side of the page) instead of just a thumb will be more users friendly. The thumb will force the user to open a new page just to enlarge a picture which is time consuming. Other than that, the figures are nice and informative enough for the page. Also, rewriting the linear form of the equation again in either endothermic reactions and exothermic reactions section or their plot will make sure that the user know exactly what equation the plot corresponds.

Overall Presentation
The page is concise but well explained. It is easy to follow even if the user is non-expert. The derivation of equations are very clear and organized. It might be a good idea to change few things in the figures as suggested above. Also, adding brief explanation on the application of van’t Hoff equation and plot might make the page better and complete.

Additional Comments
UMChemProfessor (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC) It might be nice to provide some context for the values that are obtained for enthalpies and entropies. You could accomplish this by providing specific examples, or linking to other Wikipedia pages where the van't Hoff analysis was used and interpreted. The "mechanism study" section should probably be titled "mechanistic studies". The peer reviewers have made some good suggestions. I would like to add that your figures should be larger. They are too small to read without clicking on them to enhance.

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 * 1) As other reviewers suggested, you need to adjust the image sizes and location. See this page Picture tutorial for how to place the image at different places and adjust the size.
 * 2) This sentence in the introductory paragraph could use a citation "It was proposed by Dutch chemist J.H. van 't Hoff in 1884".

Response to reviewers
Thank you for taking the time to look over our site and offer suggestions. They were very helpful and we attempted to follow all of them. We re-sized our figures so they are easier to read without having to expand them. We also made sure we consistently used Keq in our text and figures. We removed the reference that couldn't be opened, as it was not really needed. We also added the citation that was need in our introduction section. In the section about the van't Hoff equation, we changed some of the wording to make it clearer which equations were which, and we repeated the linear form of the equation in our section about van't Hoff plots so it was clear which version was being used. We also tried to make the van't Hoff isotherm section easier to understand. We added a specific section on applications of the van't Hoff plot to separate the explanation from our examples. Finally, we added a specific example of a van't Hoff analysis to demonstrate the kinds of numbers that can be obtained from this type of analysis and to show a biochemical application of the van't Hoff plot. Sjsteiner77 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)