Wikipedia:Peer review/Titration/archive1

Titration
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a final polish before I submit the article for Good Article status. I would also like to know what would need to be done for the article to make a good FAC, though the primary focus is on GA.

Please specifically look for accessibility to non-scientists, and overly-detailed or boring sections. I'm sure I've missed several grammar and style errors as well.

Thanks for your time! Neonfuzz (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on improving this article. I think it will need a fair amount more work to be ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement, which focus maily on MOS issues. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FA class Chemistry articles Category:FA-Class Chemistry articles here, which may be useful models.
 * There are some dab links that need to be fixed here
 * The lead is not really a summary of the whole article. It is only one paragraph and should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
 * Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but I see nothinhg on history or titration curves or endpoints. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Another major problem is the references, or lack thereof. For example the second and third paragraphs of Titration curves have no refs that I can see, and need them. Many of the items listed in Particular uses also lack references and need them.
 * My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Some of the references used are outdated or could be to better sources - for example ref 1 is from 1911, surely a newer ref has been published in the last century and could be cited here?
 * Or for example what makes http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-measurements-indicators a relaible source? There are many books on analytical techniques in chemistry, so why cite a website of debious reliablity?
 * The section headers need to follow WP:HEAD better. Avoid repeating the title of the article in headers if at all possible. So "Types of titrations" could just be "Types", or "Acid-base titrations" could just be "Acid-base" as we already know this is about titrations. In some cases the standard name includes the word titration, so include it, i.e. "Titration curves" or Back titration"
 * Some material seems to be factually inaccurate or at least contradicts the article itself. So the definition "Titration, by definition, is the determination of rank or concentration of a solution with respect to water with a pH of 7 (the pH of pure H2O under standard conditions).[4] refers to water, but titrations can be in other solvent systems (and Karl Fisher and non-aqueous titrations are mentioned in the article) or in the gas phase (also mentioned here)
 * The model of ozone depicted is structurally incorrect - O3 is not a ring molecule, so File:O3 8130.JPG is not a good image to use here. The Ozone article has some more accurate images. See also Cyclic ozone
 * Wikilinks should be used at the first instance of the word - so burette is used several times before it is linked.
 * Also watch out for WP:OVERLINKing
 * Watch out for short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as they impede the narrative flow of the article. Where possible, combine or expand these short paragraphs
 * I would also avoid bullet point as much as possible
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)