User talk:Ewardwell/sandbox

Nathanael's Peer Review
Lead Section The importance of the topic is expressed well by listing the relevant industries. I would suggest having a more specific definition for nanolithography, as it is hard to distinguish from the broad subjects in nanotechnology (such as nanoengineering). The lead section does a good job of introducing what will be discussed in the later sections (applications and techniques).

Structure Currently the following sections are a list of different techniques and a paragraph describing each. The section "Other techniques" lists many techniques in one sentence. I would suggest having a transition section in between the lead section and list of techniques; for example, a brief history section. Also, reproducing the content in a concise, more readable form may be good, like summarizing all the techniques in a table. Furthermore, a picture/figure would be very useful for each technique.

Balance The sections present seem to be included only for their presence in another Wikipedia page. A section should have a length longer than one sentence. The balance is good in that there is no overwhelming emphasis on any one topic, the content is spread over all techniques.

Neutral Content The content maintains a neutral point of view by stating facts. The claims of popularity of techniques are properly cited.

Reliable Sources All references are from reliable sources (mainly journals). Some specific (numerical) content in the "Other techniques" section is left uncited, so it may be a good idea to find where the information came from and cite it, or see that it is well established fact in the field. The sources are well-balanced meaning not one source is used too heavily.

Overall The original article seems very technical and listing of scientific statements with little elaboration on what some terms mean. The content is littered with other Wikipedia hyperlinks requiring beginner readers to follow trails to other sites to understand some of the content. My main suggestions would be reorganizing the content, elaborating more on some subjects, and adding visuals and/or table. The article in its current state does a good job of balancing descriptions of techniques and maintaining a neutral point of view with good sources.

Niebspace (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Thank you for your feedback. I will make sure that my definition of nanolithography caters more towards the specific field, since I understand where confusion between the two fields you mentioned can come up. I agree that as is, the sections regarding the "techniques" section of nanolithography is the majority of what makes up the paper. I will attempt to find a more concise or easy-to-digest form to present the different techniques available. To begin, I plan on consolidating those all into a single main section rather than having a large header for each technique. I also agree that I should add a history section, so I am planning on compiling more research in relation to the origins of the field. I would also like to expand more upon the relevant fields that the techniques are used in.


 * Anyways, thank you again!
 * - Eddie -

Kathy's Peer Review
Lead Section: Overall very succinct and clear while also giving a good overview of the field. 'There are several techniques' might be a bit too vague. Maybe explaining the etymology of the word nanolithography, and how that relates to what the field is.

Structure: Good list of different nanolithography techniques. Would be possible to add a section at the beginning about history/development? Or maybe the big picture industry applications that put the fine details of the techniques in perspective. Also maybe add a summary paragraph or sentence at the beginning of each technique that explains the basics to someone who has no background in the field and may find the following information a bit overwhelming. These simplified definitions could also be compiled into a short section at the beginning instead, like 'Types of Nanolithography.'

Balance: Mostly well-balanced amount of information for each topic, but there are techniques under 'Other Techniques' that have more written about them than some of the techniques that get their own section. Is there a reason for this, like the techniques with their own section are more relevant in the industry? The explanation of the techniques are really detailed, which is good, but they're also really technical, and it's hard to get an overall picture of the current state of the nanolithography, and what current research is focused on solving/addressing. Would it be possible to add a little bit of this? No apparent guiding of public perception, a neutral tone is used throughout.

Neutral Content: Overall tone is very technical, no unwanted opinions or bias is presented. The article presents facts with no opinions, so no misrepresentation or bias is present. There is no presentation of other's opinions, there is no attempt to persuade the reader in one direction or the other. Very good presentation of facts from a neutral standpoint.

Reliable Sources:The sources used seem reliable, it doesn't seem like a source is used more than once throughout. Some citations missing in 'Other Sources' and last two listed techniques, but I don't know if the reference to the main article is sufficient (if it is then just disregard this.)

Kathychen1 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Thank you for your feedback. I have added a definition of the word "nanolithography" etymologically, and I will attempt to relate it to the definition I currently have (while also making said definition more specific to the actual field). I think you are right about the fact that the article is lacking a section on the history of the field, and it further lacks information regarding the industries in which the field is relevant. I will do my best to cutdown the definitions of the techniques that are already listed. I agree that as is, many are too technical and difficult to understand--for the most part I don't understand them myself and the original writer did not link sources to many of them. I will also attempt to balance the information that the article contains to give a fairer overview of the field that is not solely based upon the specific techniques used within it. I like the advice on adding a "public perception" or at least mentioning how it is viewed -- I could mention that it is not a well known field for the most part.


 * Thank you again!
 * - Eddie -