User talk:DGH91/sandbox

=Peer Review=

Content
The introductory section is nice and concise. It can be easily read by non-experts. It is short however, so it can be expanded by a sentence or two. I think that each section justifies its length. They all seem like a reasonable amount for each section on the page. The exception is the commercial sources section, which does seem to be a bit short. Regarding the linking to other Wikipedia pages, there is little of it. This may because there are few pages to link, but you may also be missing some. For example, there is no linking under the History section. Some words like "biodegradable" and "copolymer" can be linked. In the properties section, words like "melting point" and "low modulus and stiffness" can be linked to "stiffness." There does not seem to be any other duplicate content.

The second paragraph in the properties section seems to go well with the preparation section better. Describing the synthesis of the polymer is not really a property. I also think that the preparation of the polymer is a bit technical, although that could be a good thing. For non-experts, including high school students doing research for class, they might know what the abbreviation "mol" stands for. I think that just adding an "e" to the end to spell out "mole" would clarify a lot for many readers. Also when describing the properties of the polymer in the polymer section, I think it would not hurt to describe some good properties and some drawbacks of the polymer.

In the history section, the word "you" is used. Due to the formal nature of an encyclopedia, I don't think that the word should be used. Wording and phrasing sentences to a more formal nature will add to the section, and the page.

I think that parts of the history section could also go into the properties section, as it seems more fit. Describing the properties of the polymer is not really history.

Figures
The four figures in the site are well drawn in chemdraw. They do make sense to experts, but the synthesis may be confusing to non-experts. For example, it can be confusing on what part of the adduct is from reagent 1 or reagent 2. Maybe color-coding parts of the polymer chain would help? Or even an arrow-pushing mechanism? The figure captions could be expanded to, to tell what kind of reaction is happening in which steps or whatnot.

Overall Presentation
Overall, I think that this draft is good. Figure captions could be expanded and figures could be redone for clarity for non-experts/chemists. References should be checked for their credibility and maybe more references could be added to give more support and substance to the Wikipedia page. All of the content should be re-read to check for any spelling and grammar mistakes, as well as to check for clarity, especially from the perspective of a non-expert/chemist. I recommend this because the content does seem too technical at times. Making it less technical will help improve the reader's understanding. I do appreciate the well written preparation section, as it helps deepen the understanding for experts/chemists. The first paragraph of the history section provides excellent information and so does the current and future uses section. The properties section (the first paragraph) quickly summaries the properties of the polymer. This is a good draft thus far, and with some revisions and improvements, I think this can become a terrific Wikipedia site.

Quantyield (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

=Peer Review 1 Response=

We've tried to link as many pages as are relevant to the topics presented. The problem was with trying to decide when highlights had become redundant, since there are many words that recur multiple times. So, we linked anything that would be outside of the realm of common knowledge the first time it was mentioned. We also agree about the second paragraph in the properties section and have moved it to the top of the synthesis page. The properties section has also been expanded to include ideals uses and draw backs that make them unfit for other uses. For clarification on the mol, we have changed that where ever we could find it to mole. We also removed the word "you" from any where it was used. Some of the properties were described in the history section because these properties are what lead to its creation; they are necessary in properly describing the history.

To aide with the understanding of the reaction figures, a short description has been added to each that tells what part of the synthesis is occurring there. We decided reference 2 was reasonably credible since it comes from a website that is devoted entirely to answering every day scientific questions; there is even a recruiting process for writers, not everyone can join. Reference 6 is a blog as well, but they simply report on what is in the news and so are not really questionable since they themselves are not THE news.

Leviathan120 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

While I think reference 8 was a decent source for referring the reader to several PBAT producers, I've replaced it with references to the chemical companies in question.

For the figures, I color coded them to make it more clear. However, I don't believe arrow pushing is necessary, as the general reactions in question have their own wiki pages that the reader can refer to if they wanted to see the arrow pushing.

DGH91 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

=Feedback for Sandbox=

Content
Overall, the introduction is fairly readable. It may help to include a very, very brief summary of properties and applications, as the average non-expert would not know what LDPE is used for. Therefore, the significance of PBAT being used as an alternative to LDPE does is not immediately obvious. It may help to also briefly summarize the advantage of PBAT over LDPE. Also, it’s not clear from the introduction that PBAT is a copolymer. That would be something to highlight in the introduction as well

In terms of each section-- Under “History”, too much spent on explaining what PET is. I suggest explaining PET’s resistance to biodegradation in one sentence. Users who are more interested in understanding PET will be able to check-up the respective Wiki page. Also, the content of “History” could be expounded a bit more; moreover, the content outlines more the reason for production of PBAT, but not so much the detailed history leading up to the production of PBAT. For example, explaining who first synthesized the polymer, what their motivation was, how they went up discovering PBAT, and so forth. You might consider putting some information of current uses under the “History” section, too. I would also add more information on the properties and preparation of PBAT, such as more specific quantitative values (e.g. modulus range). It might help to look at PET page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_terephthalate) for a good outline. For instance, the properties box on the side might be a nice touch to include. Under “Preparation”, it might be better to more generally outline the synthesis reaction, rather than using the exact detailed synthesis. That is, provide the important details for a Wiki-user to know, rather than re-outlining the exact synthesis from a paper (again, reference PET Wikipage for a good idea). “Current and Future Uses” is well-written!

Not all important terms/concepts are linked, such as PET, copolymer, landfill, modulus, strength, brittle, polymer, flexible, random copolymer, crystalize, toughness. Some phrases to link throughout whole article include biodegradable, plastics, melt polycondensation. You may want to consider linking Ecoflex, Easter Bio, and Origo-Bi

Aside from highlighting too much information on PET, overall the highlighted examples seem appropriate, nor is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia.

Figures
The figures are original and of high quality. However, the figures are not specifically referenced or explained in the text, so they do not really add to the text. The user has to figure out which figure aligns with what step under preparation. It may help to also label each molecule. Structures seem chemically accurate and aligned. For easier readability, for Step 2 of the synthesis, I suggest that the aromatic ester be redrawn with “OEt” or “O-CH3” instead.

Overall Presentation
Overall, good start in terms of giving general information, especially given that the original stub had nothing at all on PBAT. My biggest suggestion is to go a little more in depth which each topic and also get rid of irrelevant information that may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia audience. Also, make sure the information is relevant to the sub-headers. I would also suggest tightening up the grammar and languages. For instance, avoid using the “you” pronoun. Figures and references have overall been done well; what could be improved is mainly content of the page.

Great work! --Gracelyu (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 2 Response
We have added in the properties of PET and stated explicitly that PBAT is a random copolymer now. With regards to the history, there is not much information about the origins of PBAT or who first synthesized it. PBAT is a relatively new polymer, so in order to have a history about it, we decided that describing it's target market and predecessors would ideal to introducing it as a potential candidate and why people started to explore it (also part of the reason for talking about PET a lot). We felt it was an appropriate solution to the situation. Additionally, since this a recent polymer, we couldn't locate a ready range of modulus ranges and such; most of the information we found are experimental data. We changed the synthesis to be more general instead of step by step detail.

References to the steps in the preparation section have now been made so that it is more easily understood and depicted which reaction is happening when.

Leviathan120 (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've expanded the intro a bit to give more of a general properties and uses explanation early on. I agree it was a bit short initially, and I think this update was needed.

DGH91 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Instructor Comments
The peer reviewers did an excellent job and I agree 100% with their comments. I actually have not too much to add, other than I would make the figures bigger and part of the main text rather than a thumbnail. I did find confusing the depiction of PBAT. In the intro, you have it drawn as a block copolymer. Later you describe it as a random copolymer. Later the synthesis makes it sounds like a block of the aromatic containing polymer that has the aliphatic monomer interspersed (based on the synthesis of the prepolymer). I would clarify this issue and fix the page. UMChemProfessor (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Response to Instructor
The polymer is a random one. The synthesis describes the preparation of adipate polyester as the prepolymer and then the addition of DMT with additional diol to create the resulting random copolymer. The descriptions of the synthesis pictures have been changed to reflect this by labeling with the appropriate step number and describing what is happening. Additionally, we made the description a little more general for readers that are less versed in chemistry.

Leviathan120 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I decided to keep the figures as thumbnails, though I have relocated them to be more in line with where they are discussed in the text. Keeping the figures as thumbnails allows us to keep the captions under the figures, letting us label them and help to clarify certain aspects for the readers. DGH91 (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
Nice and concise article. A few more suggestions here.
 * Image size and location can be adjusted. See Picture tutorial for more tips.
 * The error you had with reference 4 is because you entered page numbers in both Page and Pages fields in the template. Delete the one after pages should work.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from Graeme Bartlett
Also make the tradenames such as Origo-Bi in bold, and when you are ready create redirects from these names. The properties section is totally unreferenced. Some language may be a bit too informal, such as "slew of requirements". (I suspect I might have strayed into the wrong course here!) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)