Talk:Desorption electrospray ionization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Mass spectrometry (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mass spectrometry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mass spectrometry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Comments Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


Related techniques[edit]

"related techniques" seems out of place. Wouldn't it be better to just link to "ambient ionization"? 130.64.102.200 (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I cut the related techniques section and linked to ambient ionization which contains that information. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

The general structure looks fine with the exception of the empty ion trap header and some issues with pictures overlapping borders. For accessibility the first sentence needs to be a better definition of the topic and perhaps reference DART a little less. Someone unfamiliar with DART isn't going to understand the comparison. For grammar and style the "history" section re-states what the introduction says, I would consider adding more context or revising the introduction so the reader doesn't feel like they read the same thing twice. I hope this is helpful. NicoliTesta (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

While the structure and content has improved since the last review, there are still some grammatical errors that could use fixing throughout the article. The introductory paragraph, while informative, could likely be written more clearly. NicoliTesta (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)