User talk:Ooogaboooga 101/Chemical purity

Peer Review of this article
You have elaborated the Lead section to reflect the new content added, providing a concise and clear introductory sentence that describes the article's topic. The author can include the significance of chemical purity in different areas to help readers understand why chemical purity is a critical concept in various fields. The content added to the article is relevant to the topic and adds valuable information about different grades of purity. The citations are up to date. The content is well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read. The article body is well organized, and there are no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors. Nevertheless, the article could benefit from more examples to illustrate the applications of different purity grades. Furthermore, the article does not include images that could be added to enhance the understanding of the topic. The author can add a picture of the purification apparatus as a visual aid to help readers understand the chemical purification process. The author maintained a neutral tone without any bias. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. This neutrality contributes to the balance of the article, ensuring that viewpoints are neither overrepresented nor underrepresented. The sources and references used in the article are reliable and reflect the available literature on the topic. The content accurately reflects the cited sources, and the links work properly. In summary, the article provides a clear and concise introduction to chemical purity, highlighting its significance in various fields. The added content is relevant and well-cited, contributing valuable information about different purity grades. While the article is well-written and organized, it could be enhanced with more examples and images, such as a purification apparatus, to aid understanding. The author maintains a neutral tone, ensuring a balanced presentation of the topic. The sources and references are reliable, and the content accurately reflects the cited literature. Santory300 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead
The lead has been updated to specifically highlight ideas added by this user, drawing more attention to the classes of grades and how they are dependent on intended application/use of the chemical. The introductory sentence accurately summarizes the topic of the article. There is currently no sentence laying out the topics of the article, so perhaps this is an area for improvement. Other than that, the lead comprehensively introduces the topic without being overly wordy.

One possible note, the sentence “are some key types of grades:” implies that there are other (non-key) types of grades. Perhaps clarify if there are other grades that are lesser seen, and why they haven’t been included in the article if they exist.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, all content is relevant to the topic and provides important details. Added content mainly serves to add more depth and fill in gaps in the existing article, there are no new ideas added by the edits.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, all sources are recent, many from 2024.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Perhaps certain statements could be added clarifying the categorizations, for example, explaining if grades can only be used within their intended category (ex. Can you use lab grade chemicals outside a lab?). You have something like this when you introduce the pharmaceutical category with the statement “ typically applicable as well in laboratory settings but they are specifically graded for usage in pharmaceuticals” but it might be helpful to expand on this and add similar statements for the other categories. Perhaps a useful section would be possible substitutions between grades, that is, situations where it may or may not be ok to use one grade instead of another.

Additionally, your disclaimer clarifying that certain grades aren’t necessarily better or worse, just used differently, might be good to have before you go through the categories. This would help to emphasize that the ideal grade is dependent on intended application before you provide examples.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

This article is not particularly relevant to equity gaps, nor is it related to historically underrepresented topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Yes, the statement clarifying that grades don’t denote objective quality helps to ensure that the information comes across as unbiased as possible


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, all claims are neutral and convey information directly from the sources.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Are the sources current?

Yes, all sources are cited properly and convey the information they are cited for. They are current and from reliable sources.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Yes, the sources are thorough. Many are from lab-directed websites intended for use by commercial/professional laboratories, and have all the chemical-related data available. There is also a classroom-directed piece written in a more personal style, and a “how-to” article for introduction. The sources encompass many viewpoints and approach the topic from multiple angles to ensure all perspectives are included. The information is consistent across sources, and they serve to back up the claims made in the article.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Many of the sources are published by organizations rather than individuals, making it difficult to comment on their diversity.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, all good with the hyperlinks!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, having the grades separated by application makes it easy to understand and digest. It allows the reader to understand that they are now receiving a full list of grades and allows them to compare and contrast the different ones.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No notable errors! Some small tweaks that you could make:

“Determining which grade is most suitable, depends on the application of the compound. -This sentence doesn’t need a comma

“This includes persons intended compound application” -Change to “This includes the person’s intended compound application” in order to improve flow and denote possession of application.

“Can be used for food, drug, and medical purposes, and also for most laboratory purposes.”

Images and Media
No images added currently. In the notes there was an idea of adding an image of a label from a lab, I think that would be a good addition. If not an image then perhaps a sketch depicting a general example of a label structure with an indication of where we might find chemical grade.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added?

The added content has greatly improved the scope of the information available on the topic, as well as the organization of the content on the page. The quantity of information on chemical grades is much higher than it was before, creating a more comprehensive list of possible chemical classifications and allowing the reader to understand what the possible grades are.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Including an example of where to find information regarding a chemical’s grade would be a helpful addition. This would allow readers to understand how to practically apply the information they learned from reading this article.

Another potential improvement would be clarifying the rigidity of the classifications, that is, re-state if certain grades can be interchanged. Norquay917 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review! I appreciate your feedback. I have tried to expand on not only some of the grades listed but as well as the description in the conclusion. Ooogaboooga 101 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)