User talk:Lina48498/sandbox

Group #22
Review #1 There is a lot of great information in this article, clearly a great deal of research has been done. However, there are a few formatting issues that would make your page a lot better. First off, try to minimize the size of the picture and the chem box, it overwhelms the page in size. In your properties section, you can probably just get rid of the line about the specific gravity of the substance at different temperatures, the information isn't too worthwhile. That's just my opinion, keep it if you'd like. Also, I wouldn't create a section just based on the chemical structure of the compound if that is all you're going to say about it. Either add to that section or find a different section to move that information to and remove the chemical structure section. You're going to want to format your sources properly, giving full out citations and not just links. Some of your group members have done this properly, look at their pages if you are struggling. Finally, the name of your compound should be the title of the entire page, not just a subsection within the page. Hope this helps!

Tom Smith Tsmith60 (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Review #2 This page looks pretty good! The chem box does look a little too large though, maybe because of the picture, so try to fix that. A minor detail with the formatting that I noticed was that the "IUPAC name" is not centered as the names in the section below it are, so try to fix that as well, it will make the chem box look neater! At the end of the hazards section, maybe make bullet points out of those statements or write out another paragraph, I felt like the facts were good but could look better on the page. Also, there seem to be enough references, but this section needs to be re-formatted so that it is done correctly. Maybe you could expand a little on the uses section of the article. There was mention of how the chemical is used in different ways, but adding an explanation as to why using this chemical for the listed products works so well is a good idea. The page just needs a little more work, but you are on the right track, nice job! Good luck!

Tijana Popovic Tpopovi2 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Review #3

That chembox of yours looks pretty wide there. I would suggest slimming it down to the size that most people have it at. It just feels like it is taking up a good portion of the page. The info seems solid and so do the sources, but you might want to link them together. If you look at your third chemical you will see how the sources are linked to a part of the information. Also, make sure the sources are cited correctly based on the rubric. Besides that stuff, your article is pretty good overall. I would just say try not listing things so much. Like in your properties section, you just list off the properties. Maybe just take some of them and put them in your chembox. Your paragraphs dont feel very interesting based on how you wrote them. You have enough information to write this article, so make it a bit more interesting to read.

Alex Plavnik Plavnik2 (talk) 24:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Review #4

I agree with the previous comments: try to resize that picture so the chembox doesn't take up half the page! Otherwise, you have pretty good info on the chemical, maybe can expand on it a little more. The only other thing I would suggest is to cite your articles in the text of your page. That way it makes it a little easier to see which resource was used where.

Nicole Wank Wank2 (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)