User talk:Wilsondaily/Initiation (chemistry)/Shiba111 Peer Review

Response to Shiba111 Peer Review
Hello Shiba111! Thank you for going through my article and commenting on some areas that need improvement. Your suggestions are appreciated!

Here are my responses to the edits you mentioned

1. "both contents in the thermal and photo-initiation sections need more citations. Each section only has one citation, adding more supporting sources would improve the reliability of the article."

I agree with the editor and I went ahead and added more citations to the article in these sections. I added a new citation for each subtopic (thermal initiation and photo-initiation) as well as some supplementary information.

2. "show the full name of RAFT the first time (like what they stand for) and provide a short explanation of what they are."

I agree with the editor and think that if RAFT is in the article it should be explained. However, I decided to take it out of the article because the image was a bit confusing and didn't really demonstrate what I wanted it to.

3. "Initiation by the catalyst is mentioned in the leading section but never talked about it after and since the editor mention the other two are more                   common, maybe briefly explain why initiation by the catalyst is not as common as the other two methods, so it doesn't seem like this method is purposely left out."

I agree with the editor in this case as well. The mention of catalysts as an initiator should be elaborated on if its mentioned in the introduction. I decided to take it out of the article and simple say that the two common initiation reactions occur by heat and light without the mention of catalysts. I simply couldn't find enough sources to support catalyst initiation.

4. "Some Wikipedia articles are linked multiple times and some require linking. For example, monomers were linked multiple times; however, adhesive, microelectronic, and polymerization have their own Wikipedia pages so they should be linked. Just some small cleanup will fix this problem."

I agree with the editor and went ahead to make these small adjustments. I did link monomer way too many times so I unlinked everyone aside from when I first mentioned it. I also added links to polymerization, adhesives, and microelectronics. In addition to the editors suggestions, I added more links to spontaneous (describing a thermodynamic spontaneous process), heat, photoredox, and intramolecular.

5. "The article page is very organized and easy to follow. there is some information that seems to be repeating, but I think the editor didn't have time to remove it, such as the two reference sections and the two paragraphs before the definition section."

I accept the editors comments in this section and agree to what they are saying. However, the paragraph above the definition section was from the original article and I left it in the sandbox to show the changes I made to the stub. I think that's what I was supposed to do according to the training exercises but I could be mistaken. I also deleted the reference section at the bottom, following the editors suggestion.

6. "I would remove the first heading (definition) as that is more like an introduction and most Wikipedia pages don't need a heading for the introduction."

I agree with the editor and removed this header.

In addition to the editors comments, I deleted the conclusion section of the article and incorporated the information into the sub-topic paragraphs.

Sincerely,

Wilsondaily Wilsondaily (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)