User talk:Sooihk/sandbox

TA Comments:

In-text citations: yes

Professional tone: yes

Paraphrasing real science: yes

Grammar and spelling: overall good

Links to other wiki articles: none

Score: 18/20

Peer Review:

Overall, I was very impressed with this portion of the article. The information was presented in a very thorough manner, and it is clear that you know what you are doing and what you are talking about. There are a few slight improvements that could be made, however. Firstly, I would recommend that you include more links to other Wikipedia articles, such as the ones for BOSS, MCPRO, semiempirical MO calculations, et cetera (assuming of course that Wikipedia articles exist for these topics); basically, if a technical term has a Wikipedia article, you should link to it, simply for ease of access for anyone who may be more interested in one of those topics. Also, in your second paragraph, you go into quite a bit of detail regarding mixed QM/MM calculations, but you also bring up the topics of semiempirical MO calculations and Monte Carlo statistical mechanics solutions without going into nearly as much detail. This may be a purposeful choice, as someone else in your group may be tackling those topics; if not, though, you could briefly explain those topics as well. There is also one slight grammatical error I caught in the last sentence: you wrote, "The ability to carry out QM/MM have allowed researches", but grammatically, the sentence should read, "The ability to carry out QM/MM has allowed researchers". That's the only grammatical error I was able to catch, and the rest of the article looked all right on that front, but I suggest proofreading just to make sure. Finally, this is less an issue with the article itself, but I noticed that you cited the same article three times, including it as three separate citations; rather that doing that, you should be able to simply cite the same citation three times by reusing it, rather than making a new citation every time you want to reference the article. Other than those few and minor issues, this portion of the article was well-written and thorough, and it is evident that the author is knowledgeable about the presented material. -Areider1827 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

REIDER, ARIEL Peer Review Score: 20/20