User talk:Wafflemaker02
| This user is a student editor in The_University_of_British_Columbia/CHEM_300_(Jan-April) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Wafflemaker02, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Peer Review:
Lead
Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added? - The lead has been nicely adjusted to a clearer formatting than previously. The breakdown into further classifications clears up the bulky intro and provides an easier way to absorb the knowledge being presented. - The lead section has a concise introductory sentence and a brief description of the major sections. It does not include any information not present in the article.
Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, the added content is very relevant. The breakdown into classification and labelling the types of chemical species improves the ease of reading the article substantially. The added information on the physical properties for supramolecular chemistry is relevant as well. The addition of a picture of NaCl is also good to orient the reader towards a specific example of a type of chemical species. Having definitions for the types of chemical species further improves the overall quality of the article. Is the content added up-to-date? - All but one of the references are from at least 2010. The reference for "Chemical Synthesis of DNA and DNA Analogs" is from 1991, which is old but perhaps the necessary content is only found in this article. Is there content missing or does not belong? - there is a slight change in wording between the lead and classification sections. In the lead, it defines chemical species as those that "have the same energy level", whereas in the classification section this is changed to "has the same set of molecular energy levels." While this is a minor discrepancy, it can be misleading to a reader who does not have an advanced concept of quantized energy levels. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? - this article does not address any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, which is not necessary for the article
Tone and Balance
Is the content added neutral? - the content added is neutral, and does not show any apparent bias towards a stance. Are there any views that are overrepresented or underrepresented? - the only comment on this would be the wording around the description towards energy levels that should be cleared up. Aside from this, there is nothing overtly over or under represented in the article. additionally, there are no talking points in the article that can be worded in a way to sway people's opinion on the topic, other than what could just be misinformation. nothing is biased.
Sources and References
Is all new information backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - all new information seems to be accompanied by a reference, which is good. the source for noting that each DNA species is unique could be updated to a more modern one. - all sources but the DNA one are current, with no recurring authors between them. just off glancing at the names, they seem to include historically marginalized populations. - that said about DNA, it might be easier to not cite at all or cut out. there does not seem to be many articles referring this fact. also, I myself wonder about the statement because the process of DNA replication should create identical strands of DNA, so in that sense they should be the same. Does the content accurately reflect what the citation says? - the link for the reference of "A Canadian Retailer's Perspective: Loblaw Companies Ltd" does not work. I am also unsure about how this could provide a reference for the definition of an ionic species, or a chloride ion. Given that this is quite a general topic, a hyperlink to the ions page could suffice rather than needed to provide a reference. - other than this, the references seem to confirm what is written in the article off a brief glance.
Organization
Is the content well written? - the content is very well written and clear to understand (aside from energy level thing). Spelling or grammar errors? - the "3" in Ar3B is not subscripted, which should be fixed. - there is a misspelling of "Table" in the image caption Is it well-organized? - you improved the organization of the article tremendously. the flow is now much better and easier to follow than before your edits.
Images and Media
- the addition of the NaCl picture is good. it could be helpful to also provide some sort of molecular structure image, rather than what it physically looks like. to reinforce a kinda of molecular structure image, it could be better to use a molecular or radical species. for it being a picture of NaCl, it does convey the message of it being just salt. the image is found in the Wikipedia Commons section so it is viable to use.
Overall Impressions
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article? - definitely. breaking down the introductory section into a lead sentence and a classification paragraph was a good idea to improve flow and clarity of information. this also makes it easer for the reader to digest the information given, which can be difficult to understand if organized poorly. The added references improved the validity of your statements, reinforcing your definitions of the types of defined chemical species. To add, I really like defining the specific types of species. previously the article stated them in bullet points. It is a good visual improvement on the reading of the article. This is one of the biggest strengths of the article in my opinion. I also liked that you kept an example of something that can be two different types of species with nitrate. How can the content be improved? - I think a better wording of how energy levels tie into the classification will help give a more general definition to chemical species. however, if the target audience for the article is more towards seasoned chemists, rather than a high-school level audience then this is unnecessary, as they can just infer what is meant by that. Appropriate for the target audience? - assuming the target audience are people with knowledge of at least first-year chemistry, then the article is fitting. none of the content described in the article is too complex for someone with that level of knowledge that they cannot either read further on or know already. again, the biggest thing would be consistency in definitions throughout the article which is more organization related than the actual content of the article. Arstb14 (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Arstb14