User talk:Sadafprs/sandbox

This article fits a lot of information into a very small space; good job with being concise. That’s definitely something I have trouble with (you’ll notice my excessively long review is more than a paragraph), so good for you! However, some of it is hard to follow. Additional explanation and better organization would help a lot with reader comprehension.

A few specific suggestions: In the first sentence, link “chemistry” and “nanoscience” to the applicable Wikipedia pages already in existence; this will allow a reader unfamiliar with either of those fields to get a broad idea of what you’re talking about in the rest of the page. In the second sentence, try re-phrasing “which are dependent on” because the way the sentence is set up, it implies the synthesis itself is dependent on those properties (of some unmentioned starting material), rather than that the synthesis is of building blocks with particular values of those properties. If in fact you were aiming to say that the synthesis is dependent on the starting material, just mention the starting material at the end of that sentence (i.e. “dependent on the size, surface, shape, and defect properties of the starting material). In the third sentence, separate the items on your list of applications with commas, instead of multiple instances of the word “and” because that will make it easier to read. In the second paragraph, link “nanometer” to the applicable Wikipedia page. In the third paragraph, your information and explanation was good; it’s just a bit word-y. Remember what Matt said about taking out the extraneous words? You can omit half of the first sentence by simply saying something along the lines of “The synthesis of a new nanoconstruct is associated with nanochemistry’s characteristic concepts: size, shape, self-assembly, defects, and bio nano.” Additionally, you might want to check your use of the word “functional”; it’s a bit repetitive to read, but if that’s the most accurate term, then you should leave it. Your fourth paragraph was the most confusing. Try rewriting the second sentence because I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say here. I don’t think your quotation is really necessary, probably it would be better to paraphrase and cite afterwards. You should also cite your source for the other examples you gave. Your last paragraph seems to change focus suddenly. I think you’re trying to differentiate the field of nanochemistry from chemistry here, right? A topic sentence at the beginning of that paragraph establishing that purpose will help a lot.

Other than that, it seems pretty good. Also, proofreading your article for inconsistent spelling and punctuation, and reading it out loud to check for ease and fluency will help it look and sound very professional. Jksvoboda (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)