User talk:Aaronujl/sandbox
Peer Review by Lizz Creason:
Major points: After reading the original article, this topic seems to be a good section to add because it is entirely absent now. You have a good range of peer reviewed sources that are cited often - which adds a lot of credibility to your article. The information is broken up into a ton of small sections and headings which makes it feel overwhelming and incomplete. Unless you are planning to expand upon the sections, I would consider combining them into more sizable paragraphs. For example, "Many variations of CVD can be utilized to synthesize graphene." does not really supply information on its own and warrant a separate heading. Instead, the article could just jump into the content after the heading "Graphene". In general, the complexity of the information and language used in your edits are audience appropriate and fit encyclopedia standards. It is not too depth and is pretty easy to understand.
Minor points: However, some language seems too informal or opinionated such as, "It is important to remember...", and " In order words...". I would try to make your language less fluffy and reword things to just present the plain facts. Additionally, while the original article is very in depth and well organized, I wondered if some of it was beyond the scope of encyclopedic knowledge. It may be a large or controversial task to delete things from the original, but it is something to consider. I also like the use of links to other Wiki pages, but might add one for graphene as well. Creason.e (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Major Points
- You have a lot of good information, but it is split into a lot of sections, and it seems unnecessary. Use the sections in the original article as a guide, as you want to remain consistent with how the page is currently formatted. If you plan to change the format of the article, I would still avoid splitting it into so many sections.
- Similarly, all of the other sections contain the chemical reactions that produce these materials. Again, try to be consistent with what is already there.
Minor Points
- There are some minor proofreading errors, for example at the end of the "Carbon source" section there is what looks like another copy of the heading?