User talk:Xiang Li(Gary)/Solution (chemistry)

Peer Review of Draft
Lead: The lead has not been changed, as no new content in the article necessarily needs to be added to the lead. There is some jargon I suggest to change/remove. "Homogenous mixture" is not defined, so I would suggest removing it from the paragraph; just write mixture. The lead only defines what a solution is, so I would like to see some information added summarizing the types and solubility, and properties as that is what the article discusses. I believe it would make for a more interesting lead.

Content: All the added content was relevant to the article. Nice job correcting the incorrect information regarding free energy, however I would suggest trying to use less jargon in that section. Other than the correction, and addition of a source, there isn't that much that has been changed. The other edits mostly consisted of rewriting and reformatting sentences, which aren't really non-trivial. I don't think 3-5 non-trivial changes have been made. I would suggest adding some examples in the solubility section, as there isn't anything that can give readers context on what amounts make something soluble. Also a solubility table of salts in water would work well here. I would also reference this sentence: "Solubility is defined as the maximum quantity of a substance that can be dissolved in a given volume of solvent at a specific temperature." I suggest keeping the headings for the different types of solutions so it is easy to read (solid, liquid, gas) and isn't just a massive wall of text. Also for that section you switched the list into paragraphs with basically identical wording, so I would not say that is a non-trivial change. While it now may flow better, I find it harder to navigate through, as the list was easy to read. Just as a note, there is no mention of Ksp in the article, you could maybe add a one sentence in the solubility section and then link to the Ksp page.

Tone: The tone of all added content is neutral and balanced. I think the wording in the sentence on interactions being favoured or disfavoured is a little unclear. I would expand on this sentence.

Sources and References: Some of the added information needs to be referenced. I have already suggested referencing the definition of solubility. A source was added but was never used. The new source, I don't believe is an accepted type by wikipedia.

Organization: The new information is written to an acceptable standard. The rearranged types of solutions section has sentences that sound very off. The first sentence of the liquid solutions paragraph does not work. I would add back the sub-headings so that section is easier to follow. Maybe move the characteristics section lower down because some of the bullet points may turn readers away from the page such as:


 * A solution does not cause beams of light to scatter. By contrast, the particles in a suspension or colloid can cause Tyndall scattering or Rayleigh scattering.

Its best not to have anything that looks complicated with big words near the start of the article.

Images and Media: There are two images in the original, but none in the draft. They probably weren't copied over. I like the two in the article, the first one is simple and easier to interpret, and the second one can help with understanding. I would like to see another image somewhere in the types of solution section. Understanding solid solutions may not be intuitive for readers without a picture.

Overall Impressions: Most changes I would say have improved the quality of the article. Fixing the incorrect information and rewriting the unclear sentences are very beneficial for the article. I don't necessarily agree with the full reformatting of the types of solutions section as it is now harder to follow; that should be easy to fix. I do like the information in being paragraphs rather than bullet points. I suggest making another non-trivial change, as I am unsure all your changes will be considered non-trivial. As a final note, there is quite of bit of jargon that is unexplained such as free energy/gibbs, entropy, homogenous mixture, solvation, polarity, Tyndell, Rayleigh, brownian motion (change to random), surfactants, exothermic, colligative.

The Brownian motion and the perpetual molecular agitation of gas molecules ensure the homogeneity of gaseous systems. - Remove this sentence Chemicalbonding (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I missed that you did actually use the new reference
Ignore the point about using the new reference. I am still if it is the type wikipedia accepts. Chemicalbonding (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Respond to peer review
First of all, thank you very much for writing me a peer review. Every point you have provided feedback has practical modification significance, thank you very much. Especially the issues pointed out in terms of content are useful and can help me modify the information in my draft. It also pointed out the issue of unclear writing content in my types section, which is very important. At the same time, missing out on my newly added citation has also been supplemented. In short, thank you very much for carefully reading my revisions and providing suggestions. Thank you very much. Xiang Li(Gary) (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)