User talk:Doyo1204/sandbox

Doyo's Peer Review
Hi DoYo, I've added my peer review. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me.

Lead section 1. The importance of this topic might need to be added in the lead section (e.g., what is the importance of absorption and what are some environmental implications?). In other words, the application section needs a leading sentence in the Lead Section. 2. The sentence about "Related values...zero point of charge, point of zero net charge..." introduces new concepts that are not further explained in the body part. You might want to add a section that further explain this part like the original wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_zero_charge) with a section of "Related Abbreviations. 3. You mentioned the method to obtain pzc with titration but it's not further explained in the body section. You might want to add a body section like what the original wiki article did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_zero_charge) for "Method of experimental determination"

Structure The structure of the article is clear and easy to follow. Below are a few minor points that needs further editing. 1. A consistent name might be used to introduce the concept: adsorption, adsorbent and adsorbate (you used sorbate in the leading section). 2. Grammar check in "Application Section" is needed-"Since adsorption is associated with pH, pzc value has been examined once the application of adsorption to degrade pollutants or explain the geochemical process." 3. Clarity check this sentence in the "Application Section" is needed- "minerals in organic matters including wood ash, sawdust, etc. are to be used" 4. Wiki links also need to be added for some terms. 5. In the "Application Section" that state "Raff's group" for clarity. Since Raff is not a commonly known name to the public, you might either want to define who he is, or make a statement without mentioning his name but use a citation.

Balance of coverage The article has good balance in each section. No section is too long or too short.

Neutral content The article has a neural content. No particular author perspective is shown.

References 1. Reference 1 did not show in the reference section. 2. Reference 5 might need further editing to remove the red marks.