User talk:Pranatisahoo

The article is very interesting and well organised.However I would recommend few corrections just to add more charm to the science explained. The title suggests a broad view of the concept of supported catalyst, but the text predominantly explains about the CNT based catalyst. So is there any availability of other types of supported catalyst, if so slight description of those can be introduced to make the title more consistent. The public summary is very well written and it conveys the preview pretty well.

It will be really interesting if the specific significance of “supported catalyst” can be mentioned with examples to convince the reader why it is important that makes it different and better than others.

Under the background section, it would be really good if some more names of supported catalyst s can be mentioned with proper citation. It will help the readers to gain more information about other types of supported catalyst besides CNT based ones. If possible, the contents relating to CNT based catalysts can also be minimized to give some rooms to varieties of other examples.

Under ex-Situ approaches section, if the links for definitions of covalent,non covalent, π-π stacking can be given,it will be more easy for the readers to relate with the concept.Under the same section( last line),“Inorganic compounds can also be directly formed on CNTs surface, with a better control of dispersion”.It would be good if any reference can be mentioned .One more sentence explaining  the type ,size range and name of different inorganic compounds will definitely add more meaning to the statement.

Under application part,explanations for the preparation  of various catalyst should be more  brief. The experimental details are authorized work of the researchers. In my opinion, it is better just to cite the paper without going into very minute details. That will save the privacy and authenticity of the original authors of the related paper.You can just explain the idea behind the reaction skipping the very minute details of experimental details.Readers can go through the cited paper for more detailed information. The outline of the topics is pretty logical .It would be great if few words about the future prospects and ongoing research can be mentioned in the conclusion part.

Figures can greatly enhance the lucidity of the concept, if available. Mostly microstructure or any graphical image which can explain the bonding and arrangement of the molecules on CNT will make it more clear.

The language used over the whole text is very clear for general reader to accommodate the concept.There are very few typos which needs to be corrected. For example, under the section ex-situ (5th line), “interations” needs to be replaced by “interaction”, in 8th line “controll” need be corrected. In reference section, some of the formats need to be taken care of to make it uniform. Some of the references have been repeated (56,58,59,60).So very minor proof reading is needed.

Overall, I must say the article is very very well written. The authors put very good effort to make it simple, understandable and informative.

Review for Microbial Cellulose (Group 7)
The article is pretty interesting and well organised.However I would recommend few corrections just to make it better for a general reader.

The title captures a thematic area of material science for a Wikipedia site. Most related sites are linked. A few more required recommendations are noted listed within review.

As the word “Microbe” signifies all the microorganisms .As the microorganisms are very diverse; they include bacteria, fungi, archaea, and protists; microscopic plants (green algae); and animals such as plankton and the planarian. This topic mostly focuses on the bacterial cellulose.So i’m little bit unsure about the fact that how strongly the title will address the whole discussion. I think the research papers or any kind of fundamental reviews of the microbial cellulose can answer it well.

The“General public summary” is very much well written to give the reader a brief idea about the outline of the topic. In first paragraph, there is Material Science, capital letters should be removed from mid of a sentence.

It offers a very wide background about the related topic, which I really appreciate. The outlined areas are quite logical. All topics needed to explain are present.If possible, the explanation of various processes could be slightly compacted and simplified for general readers. Regarding the he images and the figure tables, I’m not sure if it can be used without the permission of original author.If so,it should be properly cited.

The sections like “fermentation Process” seems to be very much specific towards one common process or may be specific bacterial species.It is very well explained, but i think this section should be more generalized. In “Reactor based Production” section, it would be great the wiki links or references for “Static and agitated cultures” will be provided,if available. It will add more clarity to relate and compare both the processes

Apart of all, authors also listed all the major reviews which is very much appreciated. The language used over the whole text is very clear for concerned students and researchers. It is quite successful also to accommodate the concept. Overall, I must say the article is very very well written. The authors put very good effort and hard to make it understandable and highly informative.

.