For starters, I have reviewed an article by NIMSoffice last month and find him to be a good author who tracks down many references from many sources, and masters the subject matter. I hope this article will show the same good traits.
In the introduction, I clicked the link to II-VI semiconductor, but when I searched for III-V semiconductor for comparison, it redirected to list of semiconductor materials. Though beyond the scope of this article, I suggest for the sake of consistency that Wikipedia should not have separate articles in some cases but not others where the significance is clearly identical. Probably the simplest way to handle this is to merge the content of II-VI semiconductor into the list, and replace the formatting of the list to allow section links so that we can link from this article directly to the appropriate section.
This is a problem in some articles I've reviewed. Citations to journals are formatted properly, but webpages need Template:Cite web with author and date and accessdate inserted if possible. I fixed one of these, but there are others. Crystal whacker (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have fixed all the first-order reference formatting issues. There are some second-order issues, such as that I prefer to use Template:Cite journal and to wikilink the journal title. I did this for the first two citations before deciding it was not worthwhile. A more pedantic reviewer may wish to finish the job. It's not critical. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Consider there a big "citations needed" flag over the entire "production" section except for "French process." The review article apparently does not cover production, but only mentions (for this context) the tons per year ZnO produced. Obviously you didn't invent the information out of thin air, but you probably thought one source said it when in reality it was another source. This is a "no go item" and I will place the article on hold until it's fixed. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Narrowly written and unbalanced citations
The article is far better than it was one month ago, but the emphasis and especially the citations focus too much on narrow primary literature (WP:PRIMARY) and are biased towards a solid state physics. The main applications of ZnO are not explained well, and the subsections do not reflect the usage of this material in industry. The relative importance of the applications is unexplained in terms of the amounts of ZnO used for each: ZnO in cigarette filters is a significant application? The use of ZnO in pigments is unexplained and the basic role of ZnO as a rubber additive is written vaguely, lacking any chemical insights.
The formation of "Na2(Zn(OH)4)" is at least glib and possibly incorrect. "ZnO improves the processing time and the resistance of concrete against water" Concrete requires water to form, so this statement is mysterious. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)