User talk:Mlsween2/sandbox

Group 12
Review #1:

The page looks great thus far. In the Chembox, I had trouble with the CAS number and Jmol-3D images links, which gave "no results were found" and "Error opening...", respectively. Other than that, you mentioned that basic properties were difficult to find for your compound, which explains the Chembox's small size. If possible, keep looking for directories that might have other properties like boiling or melting point, though I'd understand if you can't find anything: everyone's chemicals are obscure, which is why we're making wikis for them.

The main body of the article is well written, though some small adjustments could be made. While the "Structures and Properties" section is informative, the information seems pieced together, and jumps around between topics. Maybe trying to transition between topics will make the reading a little bit smoother. The "Uses and Reactions" section is extremely well-written, and tells the reader a lot about the conversion coating topic: how it works chemically, where it's used, what the end result is, etc. If you can find any reactions that you feel able to write out, adding those would put the cherry on top.

Four references were cited, which is a solid number, though getting just two more will give you extra points. The References section is formatted correctly, which makes adding a source or two easy.

Sjkelly2 (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Sean Kelly

Review #2:

The first thing is that you can make a super script for your cation/anions. You do " # < / sup >" except without the spaces. It ends up working out like Cd2+. Use " and < / sub >" for subscripts.

Next, your chembox is pretty good. I would recommend adding a picture, because it really makes the page come together. If you can, a molecular picture as well as a real life picture would be great. Then, also to your chembox, add more information. It's easy to do, and very helpful for anybody visiting the page to find information on it. Include more properties of the molecule as well as the hazards of it. There are also a lot of chemical codes to include.

Your uses/reactions section is great too. Very applicable. I think it would certainly add to the content of your page if you show a reaction. You can look at sample formatting from other pages to see how they draw arrows and what not. Also great job on your structures and properties. I overall recommend adding more applications of your chemical and perhaps another category. You could divide up the applications section into a few specific applications, then go in depth about each one of them. All of these applications and reactions can be found using articles from SciFinder. Use that, and you can easily get your number of references up.

Keep up the good work!

Kramer2172 (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Review #3:

Very nice work so far! Try to add a picture to your Chembox to increase the appearance. Also look for other bits of information to add to your Chembox and maximize your points for that section! I know it is hard but keep looking on google for that information. Also look on SciFinder, google articles, etc. for articles containing your compound. You have two sections completely done that look great but try to do a few more sections. For example add a reactions section. As of right now you have four sources, I would suggest getting a couple more sources (SciFinder will help with this again) to get to six and get the maximum amount of points!

Kolmodi2 (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

External review
--Stone (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The wikilinks have to be addeed.
 * The compound is not very interesting in itself, but it is formed by chromat conversion coating of cadmiated metals. Why is this done?
 * There is a wikisyntax sub and sup for superscript and subscript.
 * The yellow colour is most often due to zink or aluminium chromate! Cadmium is not that often used anymore!

Please do not unload this material
This article might have helped you students surf the web for some info, but it is below our standards and would require a lot of work by real chemists. Your instructor needs to get involved (or is incompetent to teach this course). Sorry for the bad news, not your fault. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)