User talk:Tyoo2/sandbox

Lead Section
It provides a good definition and highlights its importance by listing is relation to many other fields and industries. The lead seems to reflect the most important information, although the content of the article fails to address direct connections and applications to other subjects. It provides a balance of information.

Structure
The sections are ordered well chronologically. The section title "synthetic methods" is a bit misleading and ambiguous and could use a better title describing the content of the section. Some other headers could use better names to assist readability, such as the subsection "New phases, phase diagrams, and structures." The organization of the sections is good. Consider elaborating on the subsections (headered sections) with little content; otherwise consider whether each section warrants its own header.

Balance
The main aspects of solid-state chemistry are well-balanced: material fabrication and characterization. One might consider adding a section on its impact in industry.

Neutral Content
The characterization section is well-written but may represent a biased viewpoint. It makes claims such as easiest and proposes a best way to carry out a procedure. I would suggest adding citations for unverified claims and rewording the content.

Reliable Sources
There are only four references, but are reliable. Three are in textbook form. These sources are from 2003 or earlier. I would recommend updating some of the content and finding more recent sources to provide the most current information. For all the content present, more citations should be present (mainly the characterization section).

Overall
The article's ordering of sections is very good. Some subsections could use more elaboration. Make sure content remains unbiased and add proper citations. Also I would add visuals and maybe a third section, such as industry.

Niebspace (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Greg's Peer Review
Lead Section: The lead section is generally pretty good. The opening sentence does a great job of concisely defining the term. The section makes use of too much high-level language in my opinion. Words/phrases such as "non-molecular solid" and "novel materials" should be substituted with more accessible language. Overall, the section seems to be somewhat short and would benefit from expansion.

Structure: The article is split up into clear sections and presented in an order that makes sense. Just a couple of nuts and bolts things to possibly change: I think the "Bibliography" section should be retitled as "References". I think bibliographies are typically used in the fields of history and literature where only book sources are cited. Also, as it stands now, the article has two "Contents" sections.

Balance: The article is pretty well balanced. The "History" and Lead section could use some expansion but it's not essential to the balance.

Neutral Content: The article overall does a good job of remaining neutral. There are a couple of qualitative claims made in the article that need citation, such as "Progress in the field has often been fueled by the demands of industry, well ahead of academic curiosity."

Reliable Sources: All of the sources appear to be reliable and first rate. No issues here.

Overall: Overall the article includes a lot of good information and presents it well. It could benefit from expanding some of the sections or adding more. However, the existing content is solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyodrift4 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Response (Nathanael)
After looking back on the article, I have decided I will not change the section title "synthetic methods" since a broad title will allow me to explain other methods as well. In the event I cannot find any more methods, then I will change it to something more specific. I agree with you on adding a section dedicated to impact on industry in addition to reducing biased viewpoints. Because I will need additional sources to verify the claims made in the page, I will also ensure that they are recent. I also agree with adding images to my sections, but I have decided to do that after I have all of the content typed and approved.Tyoo2 (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Response (Greg)
I can see how the description in the lead paragraph could be confusing to a broader audience, but I will hold off on any changes to this until I add more images and relevant information to the existing sections. As pointed out in the previous peer review as well, this article has a number of biased sentences and a lack of additional sections. The sentences will be remedied by not only changing the wording to be less biased, but also by having frequent citations that I will obtain at a later date. For new sections, I am planning to add one on solid-state chemistry's impact on industry, and will later provide images for every section.Tyoo2 (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)