User talk:Santory300/Chemical physics

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@Santory300


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Santory300/Chemical_physics
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Chemical physics

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead has been updated so that the jargon used is much more simplified, which is a great addition to the article. However, the lead should cover the whole of the article, thus it should mention the major content sections of the article. Currently, it has no mention of the difference between chemical physics and physical chemistry. I think it would also be beneficial to add links to physics and chemistry, or clarify what a "physical point of view" is.

Content:

The added content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. Clarity is a great strength in this section. It clearly explains the root of the term "chemical physics" and the clarification of the term chemical physics compared to physical chemistry. The weakest part of the content would have to be the lack of explanation of terminology that is unfamiliar to those who don't study chemistry. The content does not cover any of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and balance:

The content added is neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position; no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented; and no attempts to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Source and references:

The new content is not entirely backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. More citations for the sentences that describe the distinction between the two fields of study would be a good addition to the article. Additionally, "Detail for CIP Code 40.0508" needs to be updated to a working/understandable citation. The second citation regarding Chemical physics from TheFreeDictionary.com seems to be taken from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979), which has a warning that it might be outdated or ideologically biased. All the links in the citation section work, and the citations are up-to-date. More citations in general would be helpful to the article.

Organization:

I think it would enhance the readers' understanding if the two field of study in the "Distinction between chemical physics and physical chemistry" section were separate paragraphs. There are no grammatical or spelling errors, and the article had a good writing style that didn't confuse the reader. However, I think adding links to different Wikipedia pages for terminologies would improve the flow of the reading. I think the organization of the article greatly improved with the different sections. However, one thing I would suggest is to simplify the section heading of "Distinction between Chemical Physics and Physical Chemistry", as it appears bulky. Additionally, I think having the history section before the comparison of the two fields of study would make better logical sense. The term "chemical physics" got developed before it got confused with physical chemistry.

Images and media:

No new images and media were added.

Overall impressions: The addition of the contents increased the quality of the article, as it explained the terminology "chemical physics" in further detail. It clearly explained the history of the term, and provided clarification of the term due to its similarity to physical chemistry, which I think is a great strength of the revised article. The author created sections, making it much easier to read. The added content also clears up a common misunderstanding of the area of study, while acknowledging where the confusion may come from. I think the biggest weakness of the article is that the content is not audience-friendly. The added content doesn't seem to be suitable to the audience, as there are a lot of higher level terminologies that aren't explained/linked. I think the content can be improved by either explaining some of the terminology such as quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and molecular dynamics, or linking them to an existing wikipedia page.

Anonymousecat (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Anonymousecat (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Anonymousecat
 * Thank you for reviewing my revised version of the wiki article. I have addressed the comments and made revisions for clarity. I have rewritten the "What Chemical Physicists Do" section to enhance clarity and added existing links to explain scientific terms. This topic links interdisciplinary concepts from chemistry and physics, making it challenging to be audience-friendly, so I have ensured the content is easy to read. I have faced difficulties including images, as many online pictures are copyrighted. Your feedback has been precious. Santory300 (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)