User talk:Lq1i/Standard addition/TaroToro Peer Review

Peer Review
Hello! I’ve finished my review on your edits. Hope it helps! TaroToro (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Response to TaroTaro's Peer Review
Thank you for taking your time in peer reviewing my work! Here are my response to your comments:

"Maybe you could briefly explain what exactly makes the sample complex like what is the matrix effect, and if the reader wants to read more they can click on the link to the article on matrix effects"

I see your point on the importance of explaining what the matrix effect is. However, I've decided to not add on more explanation on the matrix effect as I did not want to drift my topic. I also believe the link to the matrix effect site provides sufficient information to the audience!

"include a sentence on the overview of the main sections of your article"

Although giving a slight overview is a great idea, I believe this article is relatively short to provide an overview of the main sections.

"A suggestion I have is to remove the word classic in the subheading since your mention classic polarography and modern polarography"

Done! Thank you for the notice.

"I also don't know if two dashes (--) are appropriate."

You are absolutely right. Thank you for the notice, I changed all the -- to –.

"The subheading Successive Addition of Standards in Constant Sample and Total Volume - the Most Common Approach could be shortened"

I deleted the "-the most common approach"

"You mentioned a one-point addition, and the audience might not know what it is, so you could either reword that or explain what it means."

I see how this can be misinterpreted. As the following sentence after the one-point addition mentions "two additions", I changed the one-point to "single". Hopefully this is more clear now.

" I think the third and fourth paragraphs can be combined since it's related to each other."

Although both the third and fourth paragraphs are referring to atomic absorption spectroscopy, the third paragraph focuses on the sample types, and the fourth focuses on the correction of the method. As I do not find these two to be related, I've decided to keep those two separate.

"You're missing a space between the words spectrometer and with in the first paragraph"

Space added! Thank you for the notice.

"You mentioned aqueous solutions and linked it to the Wikipedia article, but you should include the hyperlink for the entire two words with the last "s" as well."

Added! Thank you

"maybe you could separate it into two images, one with the spreadsheet and another showing the graph. I think the graph is important and should be more clear for the reader."

I agree and disagree with your point. I agree that graph is more important than other sections included in the spreadsheet, but I've included it so the reader can refer to the data I've used for the graph. As such, I've decided to keep the spreadsheet and graph together.

Thank you again, for your hard work! Lq1i (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)