User talk:Melikajvn/Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Peer review
Peer review from section 109:

Lead:

I am not really sure if you updated the lead, it seems like your first paragraph could be a part of the lead! A part of this paragraph gets very specific about spin, perhaps that could be a subheading in the article.

content:

There is an extensive amount of content added by the user. It all seems true and to develop the quality of the original article however, citations need to be added to support what the author is saying. The Content could also be categorized.

Tone and balance:

The content is written in a neutral tone, no bias is observed in the text. There does not seem to be any bold claims.

Sources and references:

There are only 4 sources in the bibliography and none linked in your sandbox. I think you need to expand your sources and make sure you include citations in your writing.

Organization:

I think that the organization of this draft can be improved by adding sub heading and sections. Breaking up the information may allow people viewing the wiki page to find the information they need faster.

Images and Media:

Two images are added however they likely could be refined using chemdraw or other molecule drawing software.

Overall:

Overall this article is contributing a lot of good information to the original article however this information needs to have a source and could be organized into categories to help the reader find what they are looking for faster. The images could be refined using chemdraw but they help demonstrate what is being explained. Overall this is a really good addition to the original article but please find some more sources and cite them!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Melikajvn, Xavier1191


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Melikajvn/Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy - Wikipedia
 * Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

- no lead since adding on to original wiki page

Content

- The content added about NMR in the first two paragraphs are good

- It adds additional content not yet on the original wiki page

- However, I feel like you go too much into depth on EWG and EDG and ortho para positions since this kind of strays away from your topic of NMR.

- Instead of writing so much on EWD and EDG I recommend liking other wiki pages such as Electrophilic aromatic directing groups - Wikipedia or Electron-withdrawing group - Wikipedia

Tone and balance

- Overall good neutral tone which matches Wikipedia guidelines

Sources and references

- There are no sources currently in the sandbox

- All information should have sources from literature sources (secondary or primary)

Organization

- Hard to comment on organization since it is a continuation off a paragraph on the current article.

- the first paragraph can be split up into two paragraphs just to make it a little more organized and easier to read

- may also be a good idea to indent the equations

Images

- They are good for talking about EWG and EDG and ortho para positions

- If added to wikipedia should later be made in ChemDraw

Typographical errors

- $$(\Delta peak \; hieght )(Frquency\;of\;the\;NMR\;spectrometer)=J\;Coupling$$

https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/3dc9d2d70a4687ce459dd05144c6f4a47222195e - here just "Frequency"

- "This movement of electron density is due to the structure using resonance."

- This sentence is kind of odd, perhaps "The change in electron density is due to resonance"?

Overall impressions:

- Overall good additions to be added on the original NMR page is present

- The first two paragraphs definitely show provide more detail than present on the current article

- Sources are needed still to be referenced

- Some parts are unneeded (ie. extra detail about EWG and EDG) Audiolosh (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey Audiolosh.
 * Thank you for the input. At the time Chemdraw was unknown to me, I have made some changes to the figures now. I will be adding the citation soon this week, so that the work is properly credited. Thank you for pointing out the grammar mistakes. I never would have seen the issue with the formula if you had not pointed it out.
 * The EWG / EDG somewhat deviates from the topic a bit. However, I believe it to be important to NMR. I will double check this Monday on the material provided on that paragraph to ensure it's not in the wrong place c:!
 * Thank you for taking the time to read the article. I will add the other suggestion in Xavier1191 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)