User talk:Rasssar/sandbox

Peer Review by Kyoung Ha Cha
The amount contents of each section are adequate enough to justify each corresponding title. The contents seem to be their original work. In introduction, adequate and precise background information is given in a language that any average-wiki user ought to be comfortable with. I like the overview of structure section. I would suggest talking about specific polymers corresponding to each homostar, heterostar, and blockstar structures. I do not have any comment on self-assembly section. In syntheses, they did a great job explaining a several synthesis methods verbally and visually using an adequate amount of references to support their facticity. However, I would add specific examples (or applications) for each method to give a brief idea of what the resulted products are used for, respectively. You could probably throw in some mechanisms corresponding to the example you may choose. By doing so, it would help readers to have a better and easier overview of the topic by bridging the section between “syntheses” and “applications”. In addition I would get rid of links on “arm-first” and “core-first” in syntheses section.

All figures seem to be their original work and are of high quality. I would say the figures support the corresponding well enough for readers to understand the verbal descriptions. However, I think both Figure 1 and 2 can be bigger, especially Figure 2. In Figure 2, “homostar” and heterostar” are written as one-words, where as “block star” is a two-word. Also I would explain why the “arms” in Figure 3 and Figure 4 are drawn differently: In figure 3, “arms” are drawn with sharper edges than Figure 4. If there should not be a structural difference (in other words.. if both are just regular carbon-backbones), they should be drawn identically. In Figure 5, one can easily point out that divinylbenzene (DVB) has a little mistake with a bottom vinyl group. I think its position is a little off vertically.

There are total 16 references (16 of them) that are cited adequately enough that whole page is well-supported. The reference list does include non-journal sources. However, I would consider adding some online sources because not all average Wikipedia users have access to journal sources. In reference #10, I don’t think you should put a parenthesis on only “1999”. Maybe it should be put over “1941-1999”.

Overall, although there are some minor errors, as pointed out, I think this page is really well structured and written in a way that any non-polymer-chemists would read and understand without too much difficulty. But I would definitely talk about how these star-shaped polymers differentiate from other types in order to give a distinctive overview. For example, their rheological properties are important and those are what make them unique. Also, I would talk about characterization method in depth since we learned that in class in depth. I would definitely consider creating and expending on history section since these polymers have been around for decades. I definitely recommend revising and checking for grammar or spelling errors in syntheses section. On the other hand, I really like the overall flow of the page that it touches on every important aspect of the polymer. I also like how the page talks about the first reported journal as well as the well-described the self-assembly section. Good Job!

CrystalLettuce Peer Review
So the best way to review this wikipage is to go through the peer review sheet section by section.

Content
The authors introductory section seems to be at a level for the everyday user to be able to understand, but there are some key topics that have not been linked to their respective wikipages. For example Paul Flory, Nanoelectronics, Heterogeneous/Homogeneous and etc. As for the overall length of the wikipage, do you have four new sections? At the present time it seems like you only have three, and maybe you could go into more depth on the difference between the solution and bulk properties of the materials. On the same idea, it seems that the application sections in a little think and could be helped by going into more depth on each application. The material that the author chose to present does seem like a good highlight of the material as a whole, with the help of some increased depth that was talk about above.

Figures
All of the figures for this page are originals and are are good quality. Figure 2 could be made maybe a little larger, and not to be picky, but for Figure 5 the bond showing the second vinyl group should go in between the bond. Other than those two things, all of the figures help to illustrate the points that the authors are trying to make.

Overall Presentation
Hopefully you find my suggestions helpful, overall the authors did a good job to create a new wikipage for an important class of polymers. The material that is included thus far gives a good overview about the topic and the figures that they provided help to illustrate the points that they are trying to make through text. Some of the sections could you some beefing up (applications) and it could be useful to include an additional section on the difference between the solution and bulk properties of the star-shaped polymers.

CrystalLettuce (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Instructor Comments
Both of your peer reviews are (currently) quite short and really only address "surface" stuff. I have asked reviewer #1 to re-do his peer review and post it by midnight March 3rd. Please look for that shortly. I think the page layout is good and broad (not too detailed), however, providing a specific example in each category in the synthesis section might be useful. UMChemProfessor (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
Good job creating a new article. A few more suggestions here.


 * The history part of the leading section can be separate as a History section. You may want to expand it a little bit. Also, make the leading section simpler and compact.
 * Mostly, people do not number their figures in Wikipedia articles as Fig 1, 2,3... You can just place them close to the text describing them and refer them with the caption. You captions need to be more concise.
 * I understand that you are probably limited by time and didn't elaborate on the Application section. But a sentence or two for each application may be helpful.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Response to Reviewers
Thank you all for the comments and suggestions, they were very helpful! In response to your comments (many of which were repeated in the different responses) we have changed:
 * The self-referencing arm- and core- first broken links were removed.
 * The figures in the arm- and core-first sections now have the resulting star-shaped polymers containing the same arm groups to eliminate possible confusions as to why they were different.
 * Divinylbenzene (DVB) is commercially available as a mixture of two isomers (meta and para isomers), so the way I originally represented the structure was to indicate this mixture. The line through the middle of the bond (as was there originally) is seen in a couple texts I referenced, however, the way one of the reviewers suggested seems more common, so I switched to that structural representation Divinylbenzene isomers.png (see the picture to the right for more clarification).
 * Many keywords, topics, and people were not linked to their respective wikipages in the original page; they are now linked.
 * The introduction was split into a lead and history section, and the history section was slightly elaborated on.
 * Figure captions were modified to be more concise and removed “Figure 1, 2, etc…” from them.
 * Specific examples (with figures) were added to the arm-first and core-first synthesis examples. (Thank you for this suggestion, especially, I feel like it makes the page much easier to understand.)
 * External links (non-journal, non-book) were added in order to allow those without access to either to find more resources regarding the topic.
 * Regarding one reviewer who pointed out reference #10 has the parenthesis like: “1941 - (1999)”. I was unable to look up how proper Wikipedia citations want this structured, however, the Wikipedia automatic citation system put the parenthesis as they are now, so I left them as they were.
 * The first figure was entirely replaced with a hopefully more helpful one.
 * We altered Figure 2, making it larger and giving specific examples of different star polymer structures. We also altered “star-block” to “block star,” this follows the convention of “homopolymer,” “heteropolymer,” and “block copolymer.”
 * We added the reasons that star-shaped polymers were utilized for the applications we listed, however we did not turn it into paragraph form as we felt that it would not be a cohesive paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcark (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)