User talk:Jherion/ScavengerResins

Hey,

This article helps me a lot to improve my knowledge about Scavenger Resins. Before looking at your page, I didn’t know anything about these polymers (resins) with bound functional groups or even this word - Scavenger Resins.

Anyway, you should know that your draft of wiki project is really great. It helps me clearly understand the subject material; especially in the first paragraph where you have a really strong introduction. One of the special things that I like about your article is how you organize and give information to reader because it is really clear to me. Also, common use is helpful for the reader.

However, I have a little bit of confusion in these sections: Lightly Crosslinked Resins and Highly Crosslinked Resins. If you could have more explanation and information about these sections, it would be better. Furthermore, I lose some of my understanding in the Advantages and Disadvantages section. I think you need to be more specific about the reasons why it's an advantage or a disadvantage

In order to improve your wiki project,as the professor mentioned, you do want to have more internal links in your wiki production. I would say, The more you have it, the better your page is. Overall, great topic and great start.

---(Khang Nguyen)---

Wow! I knew nothing about Scavenger Resins (or even combinatorial chemistry) before looking at your page, and am still reeling from the weight of information.

Anyway, I think your writing style at the start is great, and fairly is readable considering the subject material. An area to work on would be the Layout of the material. Especially if it is going to get longer, it might be worth making your emboldened titles headings and having a table of contents. That also will help you separate the first paragraph, which already seems like a fairly strong introduction, from the detailed sections below.

You do lose me somewhat with the Advantages and Disadvantages section though. I understand where you explain the utility of the resins, but is not having these scavenger resins really an option in the chemistry you describe? In comparison to what alternative are the advantages and disadvantages? You do mention this in the context of water purification, but otherwise you lose me. If it's difficult to answer that question, then it might be better to change "disadvantages" to a "Problems" section and incorporate the "advantages" to a description of how scavenger resins are used, their limitations (or lack thereof), effects, etc. Also, you definitely will need to expand the bullet-pointed list in strong paragraphs, if you want to aim for Wikipedia best practices.

You've made a great start on links and references. I wasn't always sure what the references would redirect me to though, so it's definitely worth trying to format them according to Citing_sources when you have a chance. Also, it would be great to specifically refer to individual sources (as references) for the key bits of information.

In terms of internal references, I think there's a lot of potential for you to incorporate "categories" and "see also" sections - see the Combinatorial_chemistry page, which you have already linked to, as an example of the effective use of categories.

If at all possible, do think about some images - you don't need anything fancy, but images resembling those on the Polymer would be good, whether structure diagrams or others. You might even find that pursuing the "water purification" aspect of scavenger resins would allow you to use layman images.

Overall, great start.Laichena (talk)

Looking back a second time, I'm wondering how you might strength the lightly/highly cross-linked resins part. I really think that images/diagrams of the structures of the polymers will help clarify the difference between them, and beyond that, it would be important to include differences in uses for the different types of scavenger resin. That way you're answering the implicit "who cares" question which comes with any such set of information. As you go into more detail on the different scavenger resins, it might be useful to incorporate tables or layouts used in this publication.

Since there isn't already a page that refers to resins more generally, then you probably should include at least a brief overview of resins as a class of polymer at the start of the article, just to put scavenger resins into context - possibly even something talking more about how scavenger resins are synthesised, or at least a reference to information on this elsewhere if you can find it (I couldn't find it on any other Wikipedia pages). Laichena (talk)

I also had no idea what Scavenger Resins were and still may be a little confused as to what they do. But I think that you did a good enough job to give me a sort of general idea as to how they function and help in the production of medicinal drugs. I think that your on the right track in terms of how your page is structured and the internal references you use also provide another source of good info that people viewing your page may find useful. The different types of resins that you described are useful and the fact that you give percentages also makes it easier to understand the different types and how they are chemically different. If you could find examples of the types of medicinal drugs that scavenger resins are found in then it should make it easier for the users to understand what they are used for. And if you could find anymore different types of resins then that will give your page a more complete look. All in all I think the page is good so far and when you add the extra info it will be great!(Hadixon3 (talk)

The internal links were very helpful for me. Without them, I'm not sure if I would really have any idea what scavenger resins were. I think the info is simple but very specific and helps explain not what they are but the broader field that they are used in. The advantages and disadvantages section is great as well. Sorry for sounding redundant but the internal links do a great job of explaining but also connecting. Seeing it in your article has inspired me to put more internal links in my own article. Good job.

Woodtc (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

hi!

Like many others, I really did not know what Scavenger Resins was. This article really helped me what it is and some ways to purifying watter. I think you did a very good job for linking stuffs. I should learn your strategies. Also, I think the sources are reliable, makes this article more trustworthy. You seemed to know the stuffs well, you wrote this article professionally!

I got few comments that probably make this article little better.

First, you should check the spelling for Scavenger Resins in the very first paragraph. It is only a draft so not a biggie.

I agree with somebody's idea that you need some photos. It would be helpful to put some chemical branch photos(?).

For each advantages/disadvantages bullets, you might want to put some more short explanations for clear/better understanding to readers. And I agree with some others comment that some links for different types of this stuffs.

I learned a lot from this article, WELL DONE!

Kevin Hong-Joon Im (talk)

I didn't have any knowledge of Scavenger Resins as well, but I definitely have a pretty good idea as to what they are with your information. I felt you introduced the topic well and precisely explain their purpose along with its characteristics. The different kinds of scavenger resin could be relocated into a section, maybe under "Types of Resins". Obviously it's a rough copy, but much more information will always help with a subject you chose because not many people are aware of scavenger resins. Pictures of chemical traits of resins or something related would definitely help as well. Many references were used which is great, but just make sure to put it after information you've retrieved with the little link number at the end so the reader can easily be directed to the source. And also just make sure to give dates and names when you accessed these sites and the publisher, etc. Overall, I think it is heading in the right direction and with more information and little touch ups, Scavenger Resins should turn out great. Good Job. —Preceding Jcgafa comment added by (Jcgafa)

I thought that the group sounded like they knew what they were talking about. I personally didn't know anything about the topic until i read the article. I think they are heading in the right direction and i thought they did a great job linking out to other wikipedia articles. The only thing i would recommend is organizing it differently. The article is not structured like other wikipedia articles. Other than that great job. Hernandez468 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Francisco H.

Hello. This article basically explains what Scavneger Resins are. It gives detailed information from good reference. The first part of the article is great. It is well written and explanatory. It gives general information about Scavneger Resins. I think that it is from good research you have done. However, when it comes to two types of Resins, it was a bit hard to understand. Reading with any visual examples such as pictures of Scavneger Resins would be helpful. Moreover, I believe that the advantage and disadvantage part coud be more detailed. Since the first part touches the general information, this part could give more detailed information about advantage and disadvantage of Scavneger Resins. Overall, it is a good article and will be an excellent one if you can give some of detailed information about Scavenger Resins. Good jobs. Yhlee83 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

'''We are going to add some more photos. Add a table on contents to make it more accessible to the information. We can make some sections clearer and add more bullet points. Describe things in depth a little bit more. Maybe add more links when they are appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myap89 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 'Italic text''

I'd agree with most of the comments from your peers above. The one thing I'd re-emphasize is the list of criteria for 'featured articles' in Wikipedia; these are the criteria I'll be using to evaluate the final version of your entry. Is the entry well-written, compelling, and easy to read? Are there aspects of the topics that haven't been explored in the entry or linked to other entries in Wikipedia? Are you drawing from a variety of types of sources (e.g., personal/organizational/educational webpages, newspapers, journals/magazines, books, etc.) throughout your entry? Have you formatted your entry to look similar to existing Wikipedia entries on similar topics? If you're incorporating images, do you have the appropriate permissions to post those files? These are the kinds of questions I'll be asking of your final version of this entry. Pmedward (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)