User talk:Chem507f10grp1/sandbox

'''Peer Review for Wikipedia Project: Group 1 By: Tyler Carter'''

Section 1

Is the webpage suitable for first‐time/general users as well as for those looking to understand the topic in more detail?

The page may need to be presented a little more clearly to be generally accessible. In particular, the discussion of positive and negative solvatochromism could be clearer (particularly in the introduction). I found it a little difficult to discern what positive and negative were relative to.

Is there sufficient detail provided to allow one to obtain an in‐depth understanding of the topic if required?

There is a detailed discussion, and anyone wanting more in depth information could easily get it from the included references.

Is there a logical flow to the page?

It was a little hard to tell how some of the discussion in the components of Solvatochromism section related to the topic in general.

Are there sufficient examples given to clarify key points?

Yes

Do the contents of each section justify its length?

Yes

Has a particular section been over‐emphasized or under‐emphasized compared to others?

Not that I noticed.

Does the sandbox satisfy the aims/objectives listed in their outline?

There seems to be good discussion and the required number of references and figure are present.

Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?

Yes

Do the images meet the quality guidelines described in the handbook? Are the Chemdraw stuctures chemically accurate? Have the images been aligned appropriately with the text? Do the images enhance or clarify the topic?

Figures look fine.

Are the references complete and inclusive of textbooks and journal papers?

Yes

Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard‐to‐read images and equations or syntax errors.

Some of the sections need to be worded a little more clearly. It was difficult to understand the author’s intent in some spots. Also, it would be good if the chemdraws looked the same and the MO diagram were a little larger.

Nice page otherwise.

Does the website satisfy all the assigned criteria (a minimum of 3 sections, 3 figures, 8 references)?

Yes

Section 2

Provide a short summary of the entire site, highlighting both what the group did well as well as what needs to be improved.

This page outlines the phenomenon know as solvatochromism in which a chemical compound will change color due to the influence of varying solvent polarity. The causes of this affect are discussed, as well as the specific terminology which applies to it. A discussion of current research efforts in the field is also included.

This page is really good as a whole, though as mentioned above, there are some sections which need work to make the page more accessible to the general public. In particular, modifying the introductory section and discussion of the causes of solvatochromism with an emphasis on being much clearer and more explicit.

'''Peer review for group 1 page Amy Speelman'''

Section 1

Is the webpage suitable for first‐time/general users as well as for those looking to understand the topic in more detail?

I think it does a good job explaining to anyone looking to understand the topic in more detail, but could probably use some work in explaining the topic to general or first time users. In particular, I think the second sentence is confusing – I didn’t know what positive and negative transitions are; I think it might be better to say redshifted/blueshifted – those are terms I’ve heard before.

Is there sufficient detail provided to allow one to obtain an in‐depth understanding of the topic if required?

Yes. I think the page goes into an appropriate level of detail and provides enough references that anyone wanting more detail would be able to find it.

Is there a logical flow to the page?

The flow of the topics makes sense. However, within the section on the components of solvatochromatism, it wasn’t very clear how things other than the solvatochromic effect were impacting solvatochromism. The section on chromophores doesn’t mention solvatochromism. The section on transition dipole moments could use more detail on how transition dipole moment explains the solvatochromism. In the charge transfer bands section, you explain how shifts in charge transfer bands can be explained by the solvatochromic effect – if that is all you are planning to talk about, it would make sense to move this to a different section. I think the section about the ET 30 scale might need to be moved elsewhere.

Are there sufficient examples given to clarify key points?

Yes- the examples provided are helpful in explaining the solvatochromic effect.

Do the contents of each section justify its length? Has a particular section been over‐emphasized or under‐emphasized compared to others? The relative lengths of the sections seem good, but there could be more information provided in the applications section. In particular, it isn’t clear to me how or why you would want to use solvatochromic dyes in these applications. I’m also not sure why current research and applications are separate sections – they seem to be talking about the same things.

Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?

I would suggest linking to Wikipedia pages on transition dipole moment and luminescence. It might also be good to link to a section on spectroscopy somewhere.

Do the images meet the quality guidelines described in the handbook? Are the Chemdraw stuctures chemically accurate? Have the images been aligned appropriately with the text? Do the images enhance or clarify the topic?

The figure in the introduction has no caption – what is it a picture of? The MO diagram could be made a little larger. The Chemdraw of Brooker’s merocyanine seems large. The Chemdraw of ET-30 seems blurry and grainy for some reason. Also, the caption should be moved to below the figure.

Are the references complete and inclusive of textbooks and journal papers?

References look fine

Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard‐to‐read images and equations or syntax errors.

Overall, I think the page is well-presented, other than the minor problems with the figures. It also looks like there might be a few mistakes with citations in the section on ET 30 scale.

Does the website satisfy all the assigned criteria (a minimum of 3 sections, 3 figures, 8 references)?

Yes

Section 2

This page provides an overview of the solvatochromic effect, which describes how shifts in absorption spectra can be correlated with solvent polarity. Overall, the page is well-presented and gives a good basic introduction with sufficient references that additional information could be found if needed by someone consulting the site. In general, the biggest issue I see with the page is that in some places, it isn’t clear how what is being explained relates to the solvatochromic effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chem507f10grp4 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Group 1 Peer Review by Shawn Eady

Section 1: Upon initially reading, I found this article to be very understandable and explanatory of the basic concepts involved with solvatochromism. Though additional Wikipedia links could stand to be provided for some additional scientific terms (i.e. electromagnetic field), I believe the key terms necessary for the understanding of this page’s topic are either fully explained in the site or links to the appropriate Wikipedia pages are present. As should be expected in a Wikipedia page, the introductory paragraph adequately describes solvatochromism in general for those simply interested in a brief description, while further information on the page addresses the interests of those concerned with specific examples, chemical properties, characterizations, and applications. In addition, the references provided include both journal and text sources for more in-depth information on the topic. The flow of this Wikipedia page seems sensible, running from general descriptions, clarification of key concepts/classifications, examples of solvatochromism, then further information for better understanding both the characterization and chemical theory involved in understanding the subject. Last to be mentioned is the current research followed by applications, which feels as natural for flow as I could hope for. The content of each section is fairly well-balanced. No one section seems to be overpowering the others in content size, though the depth of later sections (i.e. charge transfer bands) is understandably greater due to the chemistry theory needed for complete understanding of solvatochromism. Though I would say the emphasis of all sections was well balanced, it might be noted that a couple sections may not need to be as well-explained as they currently are. This would likely be considered more of a personal opinion, but a couple of the sub-concepts (i.e. chromophores, charge transfer) already have existing pages on Wikipedia which have fairly thorough descriptions. For this purpose reiteration of the information regarding these topics (not to mention exclusive sections on them) may not be deemed necessary in this site, though I do not believe the repetition of this information’s availability is a problem per say. As a whole, this Wikipedia page addresses the topics mentioned in the outline quite fully. As mentioned previously, I believe the amount of linking to other Wikipedia sites on this page is adequate, though it could potentially more inclusive. The images on this site are of good quality, appearing in accordance with the site’s textual cues, being of appropriate size for facile viewing, and not appearing to be cut off or distorted in appearance (with the exception of a very small cutoff in the ET 30 image right side, hardly noticeable). I believe the images were of adequate content and frequency to clarify both general explanation of solvatochromism and concepts behind its science. As mentioned previously, the references appear complete and contain both text and journal sources for acquiring further information on this topic. With regards to the scientific and writing content of this Wikipedia page in addition to the level of understanding it provides on this topic, I would rate this page as being of good quality with some minimal room for improvement. The editing was clearly thorough, as I did not find significant grammatical/spelling errors by any means. Extensive equations were not present, but images included were of good quality, and the assigned criteria were all met. In fact, the criteria were exceeded on all three counts (>3 sections, figures; >8 references). The most critical comments for further consideration to be mentioned would be whether the presences of in-depth descriptions of certain topics that already have Wikipedia articles are necessary and potentially adding more examples of solvatochromism. Section 2: The proposed Wikipedia page on solvatochromism begins with a general description defining the chemical phenomenon and its explanation with only brief conceptual references. I would consider this to be ideal for the initial portion of the page in combination with the provided visuals involving colors/color change. Even for those with non-science backgrounds I believe this provides sufficient understanding (both in text and visually) to grasp the idea of solvatochromism. Next on the page is the description of the two types of solvatochromism, positive and negative, as well as a diagram to differentiate the shifts involved for the two. The pairing of the diagram with these explanations seems to be a good fit. What follows is information defining the core components to understanding solvatochromism, including the solvatochromatic effect, chromophores, transition dipole moments, charge transfer bands, and the ET 30 scale. The scientific background of each of these as they pertain to solvatochromism is present in each of these sections, with a well balance amount of content in each. These sections do a good job of not dwelling on the scientific theory of each concept more than is necessary for the understanding of solvatochromism (since this information can and should be found elsewhere, this page is not for that purpose). A noteworthy exception is the presence of information on a few of these components which is available on other Wikipedia pages (i.e. chromophores). After the components of solvatochromism comes a section on current research involving this phenomenon followed by a section on their current applications. Though somewhat brief, these sections help the reader understand why this effect is significant and how it can potentially be used for industrial purposes. I believe the structure and content of this page was well organized and balanced.

Wiki-review
Before you upload work, you need to check with editors at Wikipedia, because we work in a consensus manner here. Some suggestions from one editor (me): I also suggest that you get your teacher to edit this down and upgrade the English before uploading. But this article is a substantial improvement over the existing one --Smokefoot (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * get advice from your teacher on drawing methods.
 * omit language from artwork so that artwork is transportable to other language wikis.
 * use markup for setting up the table, we want it editable, not an object.
 * WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia wants reviews and books references. Journal references are too specialized usually.
 * Wikipedia is not about research, focus on real uses vs researchy aspects (and cheerleading: "Recent studies of trinuclear copper complexes" is complete and utter baloney. Always difficult to suppress urge to make university-sales-pitches, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is mainly an encyclopedic description of real world stuff, not a blog or a sales brochure.
 * Titles and DOI/ISBN's for all refs.

images
Hi guys,

Please follow the directions posted in your sandbox discussion about the images and how to make sure that they stay. They would like you to add categories and descriptions about the images so that they can be easy to find. Thank you.

MichChemGSI (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)